The URL can be used to link to this page

04-05-2011 - - Special Joint City Council/CDC Minutes of March - Item 1 (2).pdfCity of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 DATE: April 5, 2011 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER MINUTE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE WEST COVINA CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 15, 2011 Mayor Herfert called to order the special meeting of the West Covina City Council at 6:07 p.m. in the City Manager's Conference Room •at City Hall, 1444 W. Garvey Avenue, West Covina. ROLL CALL Mayor/Chairman Herfert, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Touhey Councilmembers/Commissioners Armbrust, Lane Absent: Councilmember/Coimnissioner Sanderson Others Present: Pasmant, M. Gorman, Bachman, Freeland, Anderson, R. Colvin, Dominguez, Chung, Lee. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA Linda Paul, T-Mobil Linda Paul, John Koos, and Alexander Liu, all spoke and favored John Koos, Core Development Svcs. Cell towers and answered questions. Alexander Liu, Core Dev. Svcs. CLOSED SESSION Mayor/Chairman Heifert commenced the closed session at 6:12 p.m. to discuss the following matters: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6 City Negotiators: Pasmant, Bachman • Employee Organizations - Confidential Employees - General Employees - Maintenance & Crafts Employees - Mid-Management - Non-Sworn Safety Support Employees Employees - W.C. Police Officers' Association - W.C. Police Management Association - WC Firefighters' - W.C. Firefighters' Association, I.A.F.F., Management Assoc. Local 3226 City Negotiator: Pasmant • Miscellaneous Unrepresented Management Employees, including -Assistant City Clerk -Fire Chief -Assistant City Manager -Director of Human -Community Development Resources Commission Director -Planning Director -Community Services Director -Police Chief -Deputy City Manager -Public Works - Finance Director Director/City - Director of Risk Management City Engineer CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section & 54956.8 Property: 880 Pad APN#8735-002-018 and 908 #8735-001-919, 920, 921, 931 Agency Negotiators: Pasmant, Alvarez-Glasman, Chung, Lee Special Joint City Council/CDC Meeting March 15, 2011 Negotiating Parties: California Street Hockey Association, Inc. - Orangewood Under Negotiation: Terms of purchase and sale CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section § 54956.8 Property: 2001 S. Brentwood Agency Negotiators: Pasmant, Alvarez -Glasman, Bachman, Freeland Negotiating Parties: T-Mobile Under Negotiation: Consideration of Lease Terms Property: Agency Negotiators: Negotiating Parties: Under Negotiation: 2650 E. Shadow Oak Drive Pasmant, Alvarez-Glasman, Bachman, Freeland T-Mobile Consideration of Lease Terms ADJOURNMENT CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(a) Mendoza vs. City of West Covina Guadalupe A. Avalos vs. City of West Covina Mayor Herfert adjourned the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Submitted by Assistant City Clerk Susan Rush Mayor Steve Herfert 2 MINUTE REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE WEST COVINA CITY COUNCIL WEST COVINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 15,2011 Mayor/Chairman Herfert called to order the regular joint meeting of the West Covina City Council and Community Development Commission at 7:10 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1444 W. Garvey Avenue, West Covina. INVOCATION Andrew Pasmant City Manager PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Mayor/Chairman. Herfert, Mayor Pro Tern/Vice Chair Touhey Councilmembers/Commissioners Armbrust, Lane, Sanderson (arrived 7:15 p.m.) REPORTING OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION Deputy City Attorney Gorman reported the following: Prior to convening into closed session, all items on the Joint City Council/CDC agenda were announced for inclusion in the closed session discussion. Councilmember/Commissioner Sanderson was not present for any discussed items. Items on the agenda: Conference with Labor Negotiators — Employee Organizations: W. C. Police Officers' Association, W. C. Police Management Association, W. C. Firefighters Association, I.A.F.F., Local 3226, W. C. Firefighters Management Association, Confidential Employees, Maintenance & Craft Employees, Non- Sworn Safety Support Employees, General Employees, Mid- Management Employees; Miscellaneous Unrepresented Management Employees: Assistant City Clerk, Assistant City Manager, Community Development Dir., Community Services Dir., Deputy City Manager, Finance Director, Fire Chief Dir. Human Resources, Planning Director, Police Chief Public Works Dir/City Engineer, Dir. Risk Management — A briefing was provided to the City Council on this matter with no action taken and nothing further to report. Conference with Real Property Negotiators — Property: 880 Pad — APN#8735-002-018 and 908 — A presentation was provided by staff and direction given by Commission with no final action and nothing further to report. Conference with Real Property Negotiators — Property: 2001 S. Brentwood — Councilmember Touhey did not participate. A report was provided by staff, direction was given to staff with no final action and nothing further to report. Conference with Real Property Negotiators — Property: 2650 E. Shadow Oak Drive — Councilmember Touhey did not participate. Direction was provided to staff with no final action and nothing further to report. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation - Mendoza vs. City of West Covina — A report was provided by staff, direction was provided by Council to staff with no fmal action and nothing further to report. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation — Guadalupe A. Avalos vs. City of West Covina - A report was provided by staff, direction was provided by Council to staff With no final action and nothing further to report. City Council/CDC Minutes of March 15, 2011 CHANGES TO THE AGENDA None PRESENTATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Lloyd Johnson Lloyd Johnson, West Covina resident, thanked Shannon Yauchzee for his assistance with a sinkhole and expressed his disappointment with a sign posted at the corner of West Covina Parkway and Garvey Avenue advertising for development and opposed the selling of the property. CONSENT CALENDAR 1) Approval of Meeting Minutes (receive & file) Minutes Special City Council Minutes of March 1, 2011 Regular Joint City Council/CDC Minutes of March 1, 2011 2) Commission Summary of Actions (receive & file) Summary of Actions Community Services Commissions — 02/22/11 Summary of Actions Senior Citizens Commission — 10/28/10 & 12/09/10 4) Claims Against the City of West Covina Claims Government Tort Claim Denials (deny & notify claimant) Recommendation is that the following Government Tort Claims be denied and the claimants and/or their respective attorneys be so notified. - Felicia Shelton vs. City of West Covina - Patricia Dolores Stevens vs. City of West Covina 5) City Clerk's Office -- Miscellaneous Destruction of Documents As Prescribed by Law Destruction of Documents Recommendation is that the City Council adopt the following resolution authorizing the destruction of specific records: Resolution No. 2011-18 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-18 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW 6) Public Works Department— Miscellaneous Authorization to Proceed with the Infill of City Hall First Floor (Project No. BP-09303) Infill of First Floor City Hall Recommendation is that the •City Council take the following actions: 1. Authorize expenditure of Castucci Foundation Grant. 2. Direct staff to design, bid, and build the City Hall first floor infill. 3. Appropriate $30,000 of grant funds from Fund 160 for the preparation of construction design documents and the project bid package. 4. Appropriate an additional $40,000 of grant funds from Fund 160 and authorize the remodel of the existing employee break room at the Police Department. 7) Pavement Management System Data Collection (Project No. SP-11109) Pavement Management System Recommendation is that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Establish and approve Project No. SP-11109 Pavement Management System Date Collection. City Council/CDC Minutes of March 15, 2011 2. Authorize the appropriation of $80,000 of Fund 224 (Measure "R") to Project No. SP-11109, Account No. 224.81.8140.7200. 3. Accept the proposal from Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. (NCE) in the amount of $57,800 and authorize the Public Works Director/City Engineer and City Clerk to execute a consultant agreement for the work to be done. CONSENT CALENDAR ACTION Mayor Herfert and Mayor Pro Tern Touhey stated that due to a conflict of interest based upon being trustees of the Castucci Foundation, they would abstain from Item 6. Motion by Sanderson and .seconded by Touhey to approve all items on the Consent Calendar as listed with the exception of Item No. 6 Authorization to Proceed with the Infill of City Hall First Floor. Motion carried by 5 —0 with Touhey and Herfert abstaining on Item No. 6. HEARINGS 8) CDBG FY 2011 -12 Action Plan Open Testimony Close testimony Council discussion Motion Public Hearing Authorization to Draft FY 2911-2012 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan Mayor Herfert announced the hearing matter and Assistant City Clerk Rush verified that proper legal notice had been given. Mayor Herfert then proceeded to open the hearing and Management Analyst Kelly McDonald gave a brief report stating that staff is seeking Council's authorization to develop a draft FY 2011-2012 CDBG Action Plan for which there is no fiscal impact and to develop the draft based on the needs and priorities identified in the approved FY 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan. Mayor Herfert proceeded to open the public comment portion of the hearing and called for comments including any correspondence received. There being no one wishing to address Council, Mayor Herfert closed the public testimony portion of the meeting. Councilmember Touhey requested that City emulate the program in El Monte to require banks to maintain properties that are in foreclosure in good condition to prevent detriment to the other neighborhood properties. Mayor Herfert asked that a report be brought back on this matter. Motion by Touhey and seconded by Lane to direct staff to develop a draft FY 2011-2012 CDBG Action Plan based on the needs and priorities identified in the approved FY 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan: Motion carried by 5— (). CITYCOUNCIL/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION COMMENTS Mayor Herfert commented on the devastation in Japan and asked all to keep the people in their thoughts. Mayor Herfert requested an Update on the budget by the City Manager. The City Manager gave a brief description of the current status including the possible take-aways by the State. 3 City Council/CDC Minutes of March 15, 2011 ADJOURNMENT Motion by Herfert and seconded by Touhey to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.m. in memory of the following West Covina residents who have passed away: • Barney McBride, former Community Services Commissioner • Tom Jacobo, resident West Covina Youth Pony Baseball manager Motion carried by 5 —0. Submitted by: Assistant City Clerk Susan Rush Mayor Steve Herfert 4 MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE WEST COVINA CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION March 16, 2011 Mayor Pro Tern Touhey called to order the special meeting of the West Covina City Council at 8:20 a.m. in the West Covina Community Room, First Floor, at City Hall, 1444 W. Garvey Avenue, West Covina. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember/Commissioner Karin Armbrust ROLL CALL Others Present City Staff: Supervisor's Staff: Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairman Touhey, Councilmembers/Commissioners Armbrust, Lane Absent: Herfert, Sanderson Andrew Pasmant, City Manager Chris Freeland, Deputy City Manager Shannon Yauchzee, Public Works Director/City Engineer Erin Hoppe, Risk Management Director Michelle McNeill, Community Services Director Thomas Bachman, Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Susan Rush, Assistant City Clerk Chris Chung, Community Development Director Paul Segalla, Fire Chief Frank Wills, Police Chief Michael Antonovich, Supervisor Cal Remington, Chief Deputy Probation Dept. Margaret Donnellan Todd, L.A. County Librarian Robert Moran, Chief Executive Officer Edel Vizcarra, Public Works Deputy, L.A. County 5 th District David Pilker, L.A. County Public Works Department Mahesh Parekh, L.A. County Public Works Department Anna Pembedjian, Justice Deputy, L.A. County 5 th District Brian Mejia, Field Deputy, L.A. County 5th District Al Citrar, Deputy, L.A. County 5 th District Mike Cano, Transportation Deputy PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA No comments offered MEETING WITH SUPERVISOR MICHAEL ANTONOVICH Mayor Pro Tern Touhey opened the• meeting welcoming Supervisor Antonovich and introductions were made. Supervisor Antonovich commented on budgetary issues regarding the State and County. The following items of mutual interest were discussed. • State of California Assignment of Parolees to County • Community Services o Recreational Trails at Cortez Park Update o Funding Opportunities for Parks • Update on Redevelopment Projects • Civic Center Office Development Project • County Loan Repayment Supervisor Antonovich thanked staff for hosting the meeting. Special meeting of March 16, 2011 ADJOURNMENT Motion by Touhey and seconded by Lane to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 a.m. Submitted by: Assistant City Clerk Susan Rush Mayor Pro Tern Michael Touhey City of West Covhia Memorandum AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 DATE: April 5, 2011 SUMMARY OF ACTIONS REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF WEST COVINA March 22, 2011 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Redholtz, Sotelo, Holtz, Stewart and Carrico ABSENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: Anderson, Nichols, Wong, Garcia, Davis, Morales, Freeland, Brewer, Bachman and de Zara APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting, February 22, 2011 - The minutes were approved as submitted. A. OTHER MATTERS OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None B. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. FORTHCOMING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE Motion by Carrico, seconded by Holtz, to approve the items listed. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 09-14 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Alexander Lew, Core Development Services for T-Mobile West Corporation LOCATION: 2650 Shadow Oak Drive (West Covina Fire Station No. 5) REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility on an existing 90-foot tall monopole. Three sectors, each containing two panel antennas flush-mounted to the monopole, will be co-located on the monopole and a new equipment shelter will be installed on the site. COMMENTS: Alexander Lew, applicant, Linda Paul, representing T-Mobile, and Deputy City Manager Chris Freeland spoke in favor of the request. Fredrick Sykes, Alfred Williams, Bobby M. Reyes, Dana Sykes, Vivian Matitis and Andre Sibal spoke in opposition. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the comments by the opponents. Among the matters considered were the number of cell towers in the area, the loss of property value due to the close proximity of cellular towers in the neighborhood, the use of wireless telecommunications by first responders in emergency situations and whether or not the City of Walnut would benefit from the proposed wireless facility. Z:\PLANCOM\SUMACTS\SumActs 2011\3.22.11 sum act.doc Planning Commission Summary of Action Page 2— March 22, 2011 The Commission also considered the use of new technology, but determined that the new technology would not be available in the 'near future. - It was the consensus of the Commission that, since this request was utilized an existing public safety tower, they would support the project. Motion by Carrico, seconded by Redholtz, to adopt Resolution No. 11-5405, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 09-14. Motion carried 5-0. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-15 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION • APPLICANT: Miguel Garcia LOCATION: 3806 East Garvey Avenue South REQUEST: The applicant is proposing a 2,535-square foot addition to an existing 3,451-square foot two-story house, including a 564-square foot attached garage. The proposed house - would be 5,986 square . feet (including a 564-square foot attached garage). Additionally, the applicant is requesting approval to construct a 1,260-square foot detached structure, including a game room and subterranean storage area. The applicant is also proposing second-story balconies of 129 square feet at the northerly side of the home and 200 square feet at the westerly and southerly side of the detached structure. COMMENTS: • Leo Colmenares, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the request. No one spoke in opposition. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the size of the home, and it's compatibility with the existing neighborhood. The Commission also considered the topography of the area and the design and style of the proposed addition. The Commissioners expressed their support of the project. It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed addition would not be out of character for the neighborhood. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Carrico,. to adopt Resolution No. 11-5406 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 10-15. Motion carried 5-0. (3) ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO. 11-01 - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Eyal Abraham LOCATION: 532 North Morris Avenue REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an approval to allow a 499- square foot second-story addition to an existing 2,025- square foot single-story single-family residence (including a • 356-square foot attached two-car garage). The house with the proposed addition would be 2,524-square feet (including the 356-square foot garage). COMMENTS: Eyal Abraham, applicant, spoke in favor of the project. No one spoke in opposition. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the compatibility of the second story addition With the existing neighborhood, since Z:\PLANCOM\SUMACTS\SumActs 2011\3.22.11 sum act.doc Planning Commission Summary of Action Pule 3 — March 22, 2011 there are no other two-story homes in the immediate survey area. However, staff pointed out that there are other two-story homes just outside the survey area. In addition, the Commission considered the recommendations from the Design Review Subcommittee and complimented the applicant for his willingness to comply with their recommendations. The ' Commissioners expressed their support of the project; especially since the addition was to the rear of the home and the privaCy of the neighbors would not be compromised. Motion by Carrico, seconded by Redholtz, to adopt Resolution No. 11-5407 approving Administrative Use Permit No. 1 .1-01 and removing Condition No. F from the resolution of approval. Motion carried 5-0. D. NON-HEARING ITEMS (1) STUDY SESSION VEHICLE STORAGE IN THE "SERVICE COMMERCIAL" (S-C) ZONE Penske & Mercedes-Benz of West Covina is requesting to initiate a code amendment to allow vehicle storage in the "Service Commercial" (S-C) Zone, to allow -storage of vehicles on two employee parking lots on the west side of Hollenbeck Street on both sides of the San Bernardino Freeway. COMMENTS: Joe Mehanna., representing Penske Mercedes Benz, spoke in favor of the code amendment. No one.spoke in opposition. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding where employees are currently parking and the need for additional storage of new vehicles. There was also discussion about the visibility of the two employee parking lots and how many vehicles were intended to be stored. The Commission also expressed their concern that adopting a code amendment allowing the storage of vehicles in "Service Commercial" (S-C) zones might have a negative impact in other areas of the city. It was the consensus of the Commission to initiate the code amendment and evaluate what type of storage could be allowed and what process would be appropriate. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Stewart, to adopt Resolution No. 11-5408 initiating a code amendment to consider allowing vehicle storage in the "Service Commercial" (S-C) ZOne. Motion carried 4-1 (Holtz opposed). (2) PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORIZED PLANNING DIRECTOR'S MODIFICATION NO. 11-05 TO PRECISE PLAN NO. 05-04 APPLICANT:. Steve Cross (Brighton Management) LOCATION: 3211 East Garvey Avenue North, Fairfield Inn and Suite, Marriott A proposal to convert standard parking spaces to compact parking spaces at the hotel currently under construction. COMMENTS Steve Cross, representing Brighton Management, spoke in favor of the modification. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the drainage and grading of the parking lot, and the number of handicapped parking spaces that are required. It ZAPLANCOM\SUMACTS\SumActs 2011\3.22.11 sum act.doe Planning Commission Summary of Action Page 4 — March 22, 2011 was the consensus of the Commission to grant the modification to the parking spaces, since the project already had an adequate amount of standard parking spaces to serve their customers. Motion by Carrico, seconded by Holtz, to approve Planning Director's Modification No. 11-05 to Precise Plan No. 05-04. Motion carried 5-0. (3) STUDY SESSION INITIATE A CODE AMENDMENT TATTOOING A study session to consider adopting a resolution initiating a code amendment to allow tattooing in the City of West Covina. Motion/Second to adopt Resolution approving/denying initiating a code amendment to consider allowing tattooing within the City of West Covina. COMMENTS: No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the proposed code amendment. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the City of Hermosa Beach case, and whether the current code contains language that prohibits tattooing, or is silent on the matter. It was the consensus of the Commission to initiate a code amendment to allow tattooing in specific areas of West Covina. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Stewart to adopt Resolution No. 11-5409 initiating a code amendment to consider allowing tattooing within the City of West Covina. Motion carried 5-0. E. OTHER MATTERS OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None F. COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Redholtz — regarding sign advertising the Crazy Horse reopening. (1 CONFERENCE AND MEETING REPORT (AB 1234) Report on the attendance by CommiSSioners at Planners Institute on March 9 - 11 in Pasadena. Redholtz, Stewart and Holtz reported On their attendance at the League of California Cities Planner's Institute. (1a) CITY COUNCIL ACTION: March 1, 2011: Code Amendment No. 10-02, Automobile Repair Businesses in Residential zones was denied. April 5, 2011: Code Amendment No 09-02, Temporary Signs, is scheduled to be heard. Z:\PLANCOM\SUMACTS\SumActs 2011\3.22.11 sum act.doc Planning Commission Summary of Action Page 5 — March 22, 2011 (2) PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: a. Subcommittee Minutes February 8, 2011 February 22, 2011 b. Project Status Report G. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Redboltz, seconded by Carrico, to adjourn the meeting at 9:28 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. Z:\PLANCOM\SUMACTS\SumActs 2011\3.22.11 sum act.doc City of West Covina MEMORANDUM A G E N D A TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council ITEM NO. 3 FROM: Erin Hoppe, DATE April 5, 2011 Risk Management Director SUBJECT: GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIM DENIALS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council deny the following Government Tort Claims, and the claimants and/or their respective attorneys be so notified. Rosa Velasquez vs. City of West Covina Kenneth Hyonjin Pak vs. City of West Covina Victor Dial vs. City of West Covina Fire Insurance Exchange/Jeffrey Graham vs. City of West Covina Susan Williams vs. City of West Covina DISCUSSION: After a review of the investigation in these matters, staff and the City’s claims administrator, NovaPro Risk Solutions, determined the City was not liable and recommend denial. As you are aware, since all claims should be considered potential lawsuits, it is requested that all Councilmembers refrain from making specific public comments so as not to prejudice any claim. Specific questions should be referred to the City Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT: Unknown at this time. ______________________________ ________________________________________ Prepared by: Debbie Dominguez Reviewed/Approved by: Erin Patricia Hoppe Safety & Claims Manager Risk Management Director Prepared by: Dennis Swink Controller Theinas 7Bsachrtian. Finance Director Reviewe City of West Covina Memorandum. AGENDA Item No. Date April 5, 2011 TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council FROM: Thomas Bachman, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: CITY TREASURER'S REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 2011 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council receive and file this report. DISCUSSION: Effective January 1, 2006, Section 53646 of the Government Code states that a city's chief fiscal officer may submit quarterly reports to their legislative body. This report is to include the type of investment, issuer, date of maturity, par and dollar amount invested on all securities, investments, and money held by the local agency. It must also include a statement that the portfolio is in compliance with the City's investment policy, or manner in which it is not in compliance, and note the ability of the local agency to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money may not be available. Although it is no longer a requirement to submit quarterly reports to the local legislative body, the Finance Department will continue to submit treasurer's reports to the West Covina City Council each month. The February Report shows the City's portfolio increased from $40,695,811.07 on January 31, 2011, to $ 41,350,023.73 on February 28, 2011. Beginning with the May 2001 report, average maturity information has been provided for investments in the City's portfolio. The overall average maturity of the portfolio is 908 days or approximately two and a half years. Approximately 7 percent of the portfolio is on deposit in 'various bank accounts. These funds are available to satisfy obligations as needed. The majority of the portfolio is on deposit in two investment pools. Approximately 40 percent is held in the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and 19 percent is in the Los Angeles County Investment Pool (LACIP). These funds are completely liquid since the City could withdraw them at any time. The portfolio also includes two long-term, high interest investments made in the early 1980s which constitute approximately 34 percent of the portfolio. CITY OF WEST COVINA STATEMENT OF TREASURER'S ACCOUNTABILITY FEBRUARY 28, 2011 TYPES OF DEPOSITS: JANUARY 31 DEPOSITS WITHDRAWALS FEBRUARY 28 CHECKING ACCOUNTS , WELLS FARGO GENERAL CHECKING $ 272,596.00 $ 9,651,770.29 $ 8,971,828.29 $ 952,538.00 WELLS FARGO BANK GEN AUTO & LIABILITY - 81,130.21 81,130.21 WELLS FARGO BANK WORKERS COMPENSATION 50,010.00 175,668.19 132,592.07 93,086.12 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL ' 178,966.16 • . 2,706,697.91 2,737,035.03 148,629.04 SUB-TOTAL . $ 501,572.16 $ ' 12,615,266.60 $ 11,922,585.60 $ 1,194,253.16 2.888% - , OTHER INVESTMENTS: , . WELLS FARGO SWEEP $ 1,063,501.09 ' $ ' 2,240,705.33 $ 1,787,643.09 , $ 1,516,563.33 3.668% FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FNMA) 3,688,593.75 - . , - - 3,688,593.75 ** 8.920% ..- FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION (FHLMC) 10,199,962.50 - , - 10,199,962.50 ** 24.667% LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND - CITY (LAIF) . 17,161,773.25 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 16,661,773.25 40.294% - LOS ANGELES COUNTY POOL (LACIP) 8,080,408.32 ' , 8,469.42 - • 8,088,877.74 19.562% SUB-TOTAL $ 40,194,238.91 $ 3,249,174.75 $ 3,287,643.09 $ 40,155,770.57 97.112% TOTAL $ 40,695,811.07 $ 15,864,441.35 $ 15,210,228.69 $ 41,350,023.73 100% '"' These two high interest long term investments were made before State Law limited investments to a maximum five-year term. It has been verified that this investment portfolio is in conformity with the City of West Covina's investment policy which was approved by the City Council on January 18, 2005. The investment portfolio provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet estimated expenditures for the next six months. This report is accurate with respect to all information received as of March 23, 2011. EARNED INTEREST YIELD THIS PERIOD: 3.223% SIX-MONTH TREASURY BILL YIELD: 0.170% .. REVIEWED BY: PREPARED: , . / V .1••n••n•nn•n Dennis Swink, City Controller Angel F. P-tena, Revenue Services Supervisor y C SUBMITTED BY: ..,„._....--1.1.7....,........,_ ./..../0/....1 -.1.--..../..er __....•_ / */ 'i-e7z-,e /77; , -- -- Thomas : - i 0 an, - ssta Tr ,. ity Manager/Finance Director _ arian V,..,>-iftrison, City Treasurer ity of West Covina Portfolio Detai February 28, 2011 AVERAGE 02/28/2011 01/31/2011 INVESTMENT INVESTMENT ISSUER MATURITY PURCHASE DAYS TO CUSIP RATE • YIELD COST PAR MARKET MARKET NUMBER TYPE DATE DATE MATURITY ' VALUE * VALUE* 1986-06-01 1985-12-10 1992-04-20 1.989-10-19 ** FHLMC ** FNMA LACIP ' LAIF U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY LOS ANGELES COUNTY TREASURER*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA 06/01/16 12/10/15 06/01/86 313400MC4 8:250 10.350 . .1.360 0.512 TOTALS: 7.728 10,199,962.50 9,555,000.00 11,528,967.45 11,589,450.60 1891 10,199,962.50 9,555,000.00 11,528,967.45 11,589,450.60 12/10/85 ' .313586U133 8.418 3,688,593.75 3,000,000.00 4,065,570.00 4,102,050.00 1720 3,688,593.75 3,000,000.00 4,065,570.00 4,102,050.00 1.360 0.512 8,088,877.74 16,661,773.25 8,088,877.74 16,661,773.25 8,088,877.74 16,661,773.25 8,088,877.74 16,661,773.25 04/20/92 . 607 N/A 10/19/89 177 N/A 38,639,207.24 37,305,650.99 40,345,188.44 .40,442,151.59 908 " MARKET VALUES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY UNION BANK. ** These two high interest long term investments were made before State Law limited investments to a maximum five-year term For this month's report, January 2011 LACIP Earnings Rate and January 2011 LACIP Weighted Average Days to Maturity were used due to the unavailability of February 2011 figures as of the writing of this report Note: The Wells Fargo Sweep account was not included in the calculation of average maturity. ••ff: City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA Item No. 5 Date April 5, 2011 TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, Executive Director and the Community Development Commission FROM: Thomas Bachman, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: CDC TREASURER'S REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 2011 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Community Development Commission Board receive and file this report DISCUSSION: Effective January 1, 2006, Section 53646 of the Government Code states that a city's chief fiscal officer may submit quarterly reports to their legislative body. This report is to include the type of investment, issuer, date of maturity, par and dollar amount invested on all securities, investments, and money held by the local agency. It must also include a statement that the portfolio is in compliance with the City's investment policy, or manner in which it is not in compliance, and note the ability of the local agency to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money may not be available. Although it is no longer a requirement to submit quarterly reports to the local legislative body, the Finance Department will continue to submit treasurer's reports to the West Covina Commimity Development Commission Board each month. The February Report shows the CDC's portfolio decreased from $13,989,319.86 on January 31, 2011, to $13,441,121.51 on February 28, 2011. To ensure funds are available on short notice to take advantage of development opportunities, the CDc's surplus funds are in investment pools with the State of California Local Agency Investment Pool (LALF) and the Los Angeles County Investment Pool (LACIP). These funds are completely liquid since the City could withdraw them at any time. Approximately 64 percent of the portfolio is on deposit in LAIF and 35 percent is in LACIP. The remaining 1 percent of available cash is on deposit in various checking accounts. This report also shows cash holdings for the Community Facilities District. These funds are used for district operating expenses and debt service and are invested in a separate LACIP account. • - , • Prepared loT: Denni'Swirik Reviewed/Approved b omas Ba.chman Controller . Finance Director COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STATEMENT OF TREASURER'S ACCOUNTABILITY FEBRUARY 28,2011 TYPES OF DEPOSITS: CHECKING ACCOUNTS WELLS FARGO GENERAL CHECKING PACIFIC WESTERN NAT BANK RDA PROGRAMS (SBA/FTHB/HPP) SUB-TOTAL OTHER INVESTMENTS: LOCAL AGENCY .INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF) LOS ANGELES COUNTY POOL (LACIP) SUB TOTAL - TOTAL S. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT REVENUE FUND WELLS FARGO BANK C.F.D. CHECKING LOS ANGELES COUNTY POOL (LACIP) TOTAL FOR C.F.D. REVENUE FUND JANUARY 31 " DEPOSITS $ 5,388.32 17,350.90 22,739.22 979,021.33 30,000.00 $ 1,009,021.33 $ $ 9,215,868.40 462,000.00 4,750,712.24 4,979.43 $ 13,966,580.64 $ 466,979.43 $ 13,989,319.86 $ 1,476,000.76 $ $ 621.51 $ 1,121,000.00 $ 1,840,793.08 223,945.52 $ 1,841,414.59 $ 1,344,945.52 $ WITHDRAWALS 978,748.21 34,450.90 1,013,199.11 1,011,000.00 1,011,000.00 2,024,199.11 120,813.40 898,000.00 018,813.40 FEBRUARY 28 $ 5,661.44 12,900.00 $ 18,561.44 $ 8,666,868.40 4,755,691.67 $ 13,422,560.07 $ 13,441,121.51 808.11 1,166,738.60 1,167,546.71 It has been verified that this investment portfolio is in conformity with the City of West Covina's investment policy which was approved by the City Council on January 18, 2005. The investment portfolio provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet estimated expenditures for the next six months. This report is accurate with respect to all information received as of March 23, 2011. . EARNED INTEREST YIELD THIS PERIOD: 0.812% SIX-MONTH TREASURY BILL YIELD: 0.170% REVI WED BY: PREPAR ip • Dennis Swink, City Controller Angel F. •atefia, venue Services Supervisor - SUBMITTED : PP , ED N. ,••• , Thomas B chman, Assi---n--City—Manager/Finance Direct& - Marian V. Smiltden, City Treasurer City of West Covina Memorandum TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council FROM: Paul Segalla, Fire Chief Fire Department AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE April 5, 2011 SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF VHF PORTABLE RADIOS UTILIZING GRANT FUNDS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council waive the formal contract procedure and approve the purchase of thirty-four (34) XTS5000 VHF Portable Radios and five (5) XTL5000 VHF Mobile Radios from Motorola, Inc. at a total cost of $109,224.92 including sales tax per Los Angeles County Contract No. 43070. DISCUSSION: On March 12, 2010, West Covina Fire Department switched to the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) radio platform. This switch improved Dispatch and Command communications between the West Covina Fire Department and the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and provided interoperability with the West Covina Police Department. Unfortunately, the complete switch to UHF limited the fire department's ability to conduct tactical communications on the Very High Frequency (VHF) radio platform. Most fireground tactical communications are assigned to VHF tactical frequencies. The West Covina Fire Department currently only has a limited number of VHF portable radios assigned to its personnel. The inability of all personnel to have direct communications with allied agencies using the VHF platform limits the effectiveness of information transfer on the fireground in both jurisdictions. Furthermore, the lack of tactical VHF radio communications for all personnel could impact firefighter safety. For instance, firefighter rescue when operating in proximity to emergency helicopters. The West Covina Fire Department requested funding for this purchase as a supplemental request to the 2008 State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) grant awarded to the Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs Association (LAAFCA). The purchase of portable and mobile radios will provide tactical radio communications for all West Covina Fire Department emergency personnel operating on the VHF radio frequency platform. In addition, the VHF XTS5000 radios will provide improved interoperability for firefighters responding to Mutual Aid incidents, and will allow for inter-department communications within the City of West Covina. Furthermore, this will standardize the portable radios in use by the fire department and will allow the use of a single battery and battery charger for VHF and UHF portable radios. FISCAL IMPACT: The purchase of these radios is being fully funded using an allocation of $109,224.92 in SHSGP funds awarded to the LAAFCA for communications improvements in the region. Prep , d by Randy Isaman Assistant Chief/Fire Marshal 4 Reviewed/A 4iroved by: Paul Segalla Fire Chief Reviewed/Approved by: Finance ZACity Council Staff Reports \2011\Purchase of VHF Portable Radios Utilizing Grant Funds_4-5-11.doc Chy of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA 0: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager ITEM NO. 7 and City Council DATE April 5, 2011 FROM: Shannon A. Yauchzee, Director/City Engineer Public Works Department SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT RECOMMENDATION: is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE CERTIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 7, 2011 FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 COMMENCING IN FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 TO FUND THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN LANDSCAPING AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT ISCUSSION: Maintenance District No. 4 was established in 1975 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The district was created at the request of the owner of the developments in lieu of forming a Homeowners' Association. The district is located in the southeasterly part of the City (Attachment "A"). The funds collected are used to maintain landscaping, irrigation, hard scape, and paseo lighting on 130 acres of public open space within the boundaries of the district. To encourage innovative housing types and neighborhood designs, and to preserve the ridgelines of the San Jose Hills, this area was developed with relatively narrow street right-of-ways and small lot sizes. The resulting surplus of land was converted to landscaped slope areas and park-like "green belt" areas containing walkways, landscaping, and lighting. At its regular meeting on March 1, 2011, the West Covina City Council adopted a resolution ordering the Engineer's Report. It is proposed that the City Council adopt a resolution to preliminarily approve the Engineer's Report for West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 4, and declare its intention to levy and collect assessments within the district for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. In addition, it is proposed to set June 7, 2011 for the Public Hearing. The process of renewing the Maintenance District has been complicated by the passage of Proposition 218 in November 1996. In general, it established extensive balloting requirements for any new or increased assessments. Proposition 218 contains an exemption for assessments imposed pursuant to a petition by the person(s) owning all the parcels within the district. Maintenance District No. 4 satisfies this condition and thus is exempt from the provisions of Proposition 218. However, the exemption would not be applicable if the assessments were to be increased beyond the maximum initially established rates or the methodology of levying the assessments was changed and would require a vote of the affected property owners. For Fiscal Year 2011-2012, the City is proposing to maintain assessment rates at their current level. Since neither rates nor assessment methodology are changed, the renewal for the district will be completed in accordance with the requirements of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council Page 2 - April 5,2011 The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 specifies the procedures for renewal of Maintenance Districts. On March 1, 2011, the City Council took the initial step of the renewal process by adopting a resolution ordering the Engineer's Report. This report has been completed and includes plans and specifications for improvements, estimated costs, assessment diagrams, and assessments spread to cover the estimated costs. The report was prepared in accordance with Division 15, Article 4, Chapter 1, Part 2 of the California Streets and Highways Code and is included as Attachment "C" of this report. The next step in the renewal process is the preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report and adoption of the Resolution of Intention concerning the levy and collection of assessments for each district. Also, a date for the public hearing must be set as required in the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. At the public hearing, the City Council will consider all written and oral comments regarding the level of assessments and the maintenance and capital improvement work being done within each district. The renewal process requires that a public notice be posted and published in a locally circulated newspaper, but does not require notices be mailed to each resident. Upon the conclusion of each hearing, the City Council should adopt a resolution confirming the diagram and assessment levy either as proposed or as changed by the City Council. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may choose: Staff recommends maintaining the assessment rates at their current level and reduce the level of services to keep the district viable. The attached "10-Year Fiscal Projection" shows rates being maintained at their current level and a depletion of the reserves over the ten- years (See Attachment "D"). To reduce the assessment rates, the districts reserve will deplete at faster pace requiring the City's General Fund to subsidize the district. To increase the assessment rates, the district would need to comply with the mail ballot provision of Proposition 218. In Fiscal Year 2009-2010, mail ballot election on a proposed increase of the assessment rates for MD4 was processed and was not approved by the district property owners. FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Engineer's Report for Maintenance District No. 4 recommends that the assessment rates be maintained at their current levels. The annual rates in Maintenance District No. 4 will be maintained at $348.02 for a single dwelling unit. The projected income from the recommended rates is $1,040,000. In addition, $27,500 is projected to be received from two other sources: $11,000 from Maintenance District No. 2 for costs of maintenance in an overlap area between Maintenance District No. 2 and Maintenance District No. 4, and $16,500 from interest income. The total projected revenue is $1,067,500. The proposed Operating Budget for the district in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 is $1,031,723 and is a decrease of 2.63% when compared to the approved/amended budget of $1,059,569 of Fiscal Year 2010-2011. The proposed Operating Budget funds only the regular landscape maintenance. Ongoing improvements such as irrigation system improvements, enhancement to existing landscaping, tree trimming, and other extras are being eliminated to maintain the operating budget within projected revenues from the capped assessment rates. No new Capital Improvement Program (CIF) projects are proposed. ZAAGENDA - 20 I 11MD4 ER Approval 201 l-20I2.doc 1T —k4rep ed b Miguel Ilerna.ridei Reviewed/Approved by: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council Page 3 — April 5,2011 There are no legal requirements or formal guidelines for the amount of reserves in an assessment district, however at least 50% is required to cover cash flow. A reserve between 100% and 200% is recommended by staff to cover cash flow, future capital projects, and emergencies. Civil Engineering Associate Reviewed/Approved by: Shannon A. Yauchzee Director/City Engineer Attachments: "A" - MD4 Map "B" - 15 Year Rate History "C" - MD4 Engineers Report MD4 10 Year Fiscal Projection - Chart "F" - Resolution LIAGENDA - 2011 M D4 ER Approval 201 1 -201 2. cloc ATTACHMENT "A" CITY OF WEST COVINA MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT "B" MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NO. 15-YEAR RATE HISTORY Fiscal Year Per unit per zone Highest shown * Proposed 2011-12 $ 464.00 2010-11 $ 464.00 2009-10 $ 464.00 2008-09 $ 464.00 2007-08 $ 464.00 2006-07 $ 464.00 2005-06 S 455.87 2004-05 $ 414.43 2003-04 $ 376.80 2002-03 S 348.88 2001-02 $ 348.88 2000-01 $ 348.88 99-2000 S 348.88 98-99 $ 348.88 97-98 $ 348.88 96-97 $ 348.88 MD4 has nine (9) separate zones of benefit with varying assessment rates from $49.16 to $464.00 per assessment unit. The zone shown in the table is for a parcel with a duplex and is the highest assessment per parcel. All other rates and zones are shown on page 13 of the Engineer's Report. Z:\AGENDA - 20111M134 ER Approval 2011-2012.doc April 5. 2010 Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 ATTACHMENT "C" ENGINEER'S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 CITY OF WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 March 11.201! Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Report art A - Plans and Specifications Part B - Estimate of Costs Part C - Assessment Rolls Part D - Method of Apportionment Summary of Assessments art E - Property Owners List 10 Part F - Assessment Diagram March 11,2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 CITY OF WEST COVINA FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 SECTION 22500 THROUGH 22679 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE Pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, State of California, in connection with proceedings for: CITY OF WEST COVINA LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 Hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District" or "District", I, Shannon A. Yauchzee, P.E., the Public Works Director/City Engineer of the City of West Covina, submit herewith the "Report" consisting of six (6) parts as follows: PART A PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Plans and specifications for the improvements are as set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on file in the Office of the City Engineer and incorporated herein by reference. PART B ESTIMATE OF COST An estimate of the costs of the proposed improvements, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith, is as set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. PART C ASSESSMENT ROLLS An assessment of the estimate cost of the improvements on each benefited lot or parcel of land within the Assessment District. PART D METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT The method of apportionment of assessments, indicating the proposed assessment of the net amount of the costs and expenses of the improvements to be assessed upon the several lots and parcels of land within the Assessment District, in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots and parcels. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk and by reference is made a part hereof. PART E PROPERTY OWNER LIST A list of names and addresses of the owners of real property within the Assessment District, as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles. The list is keyed to the records of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles, which are incorporated herein by reference. 1 March 11, 2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 PART F ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM The Diagram of the Assessment District Boundaries showing the exterior boundaries of the Assessment District, the boundaries of any zones within the Assessment District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the Assessment District is on file in the Office of the City Engineer and incorporated herein by reference. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Assessment District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles for fiscal year to which this report applies. The Assessor's maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made a part of this report. 2 March 11, 2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 PART A PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS The facilities, which have been constructed within the City of West Covina, and those which may be subsequently constructed, will be serviced and maintained as generally described as follows: DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CITY OF WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 The existing facilities to be maintained and serviced include public open space, area lighting, parkway, and manufactured slopes and appurtenant facilities. There are approximately 130 acres of open space within the District. The District will fund the costs in connection with the district maintenance and servicing including, but not limited to, personnel, electrical energy, water, materials, contracting services, and other expenses necessary for the satisfactory operation of these facilities. Reference is made to Part "D" of this report for a discussion of the Zones of Benefit and the facilities associated with them, which are serviced and maintained. The facilities are described as follows: Landscaping and Appurtenant Facilities Facilities include but are not limited to: landscaping, planting, shrubbery, trees, irrigation system, hardscape, fixtures, sidewalk maintenance resulting from landscape growth and appurtenant facilities, in public right-of-ways, parkways, and dedicated easements within the boundaries of said Assessment District. Lighting and Appurtenant Facilities Facilities include but are not limited to: poles, fixtures, bulbs, conduits, conductors, equipment including guys, anchors, posts and pedestals, metering devices and appurtenant facilities as required to provide lighting in the public right-of-ways and dedicated easements within the boundaries of said Assessment District. Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual operation, maintenance and servicing of the landscaping, public lighting facilities and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping, public lighting facilities or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health, and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; and the cleaning, sandblasting and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti. Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of landscaping and the maintenance of any of the public lighting facilities and furnishing of electrical energy for the public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of landscaping or appurtenant facilities. The plans and specifications for the improvements are on file in the Office of the City Engineer and are by reference herein made a part of this report. 3 March 11, 2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 PART B STIMATE OF COST The City's budget for the operation and services costs, shown below, detail the estimated costs and fund balances for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 as available at the time of preparation of this report. The 1972 Act provides that the total cost can be recovered in the assessment spread including incidental expenses. The latter can include engineering fees, legal fees, printing, mailing, postage, publishing, and all other related costs identified with the district proceedings. EXPENDITURES Estimated expenditures for maintenance and operation for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 are as follows: DIRECT MAINTENANCE A. Personnel Services $ 198,013 Sub-total 198,013 Material and Services $ 381,690 $ 5,000 $ 327,700 $ 7,050 $ 19,034 $ 3,817 $ 79,491 1. Maintenance Contracts 2. Graffiti Removal 3. Utilities (electricity & water) 4. Building Maintenance and Repair 5. Maintenance Supplies 6. Property and Liability Insurance 7. Administration and Overhead Sub-total 823,782 C. Equipment Outlay TOTAL ENGINEERING AND INCIDENTALS A. Personnel Services TOTAL III. TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET IV. FUND TRANSFER TOTAL V. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT TOTAL V1. TOTAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET V11. CONTINGENCY AND RESERVES A. Cash Flow Reserves $ 515,862 B. Contingency $ 1,161,679 TOTAL CONTINGENCY AND RESERVES TOTAL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES $1,021,795 9,928 $1,031,723 3,575 1,035,298 $1 ,6 77,541 $2,712,839 March 11, 2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 REVENUES Projected revenues available to the District for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 are as follows: Assessment Income $ 1,040,000 Interest 16,500 Reimbursement from MD 2 11.000 TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUE $ 1,067,500 ADJUSTED FUND BALANCE (Prior fiscal year) $ 1,645,339 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $ 2,712,839 The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set-up for the revenue and expenditures of the district. Funds raised by assessment shall be used only for the purpose as stated herein. A contribution to the District by the City may be made to reduce assessments, as the City Council deems appropriate. Any balance or deficit remaining on July 1 s' must be carried over to the next fiscal year. PART C ASSESSMENT ROLL The proposed assessment, commencing with Fiscal Year 2011-2012, and amount of assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the latest roll at the Assessor's Office, are contained in the Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of West Covina, which is incorporated herein by reference. The description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles and these records are, by reference, made part of this Report. PART D METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT GENERAL Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, permits the establishment of assessment district by cities for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which include the construction, maintenance and servicing of street lights, traffic signals, landscaping, and park and recreational facilities. Section 22573, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, requires that maintenance assessments be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This section states: "The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements." Because assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are not a tax, and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution. The Act permits the designation of zones of benefits within any individual assessment district if "by reason of variation in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive different degrees of benefit from the improvements." (Section 22574.) Thus, the 1972 Act requires the levy of a true "assessment" rather than a "special tax." March 11,2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 The Act also permits certain parcels to be exempt from assessment. Excepted from these assessments are areas of all publicly owned property such as: public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, all public easements, and right-of-ways, all public parks, public greenbelts and parkways, and all public property being used for public purposes. BENEFIT ANALYSIS All parcels in the City of West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 derive benefit from the open space maintenance. The intent of this report is to establish a methodology that fairly distributes the cost of the system in relation to the benefit received. The assessment ratio for all properties is based on dwelling units. Each single family residential parcel, condominium complex, apartment, duplex, multi-family residential, and other developed land, is assessed per dwelling unit. This pro-ration accounts for an adjustment for street right-of- ways and public easements In the Fiscal Year 2011-2012, the City Council ordered a report to comply with the benefit analysis of Proposition 218. In compliance with Proposition 218, the City will submit the District's benefit analysis methodology and assessment rates to the property owners to vote in support of or in opposition. Proposition 218 requires that the "general" benefit to the public at large identified for any of the landscape and lighting maintenance services being funded through an assessment district may not be assessed to the parcels in the district. Only the "special" benefit of the landscape and lighting maintenance may be assessed to the parcels in the District. Every parcel assessed within the District receives a particular and distinct special benefit from the improvements. The general benefit to the public at large from the landscaping and lighting maintenance services provided by the City would be realized by traffic passing through the District, and would be immeasurable. Therefore, from a public use perspective, the landscaping, paseo lighting, and open space maintenance provides only a direct and special benefit to those parcels in the District. Further, the assessments do not include the costs of other general benefits received by the public within the District such as fire or police services. Therefore, the assessed parcels in the District are assessed only for the special benefits received above and beyond the general benefits received by all residents in the City. LMD 4 BENEFIT ZONES DESCRIPTIONS. Al Parcels in this zone are commercial properties, which are located at the intersections of major arterial roadways. These parcels are benefited by the district improvements to a lesser degree due to their proximity to the open space areas. Nonetheless, the parcels are benefited by aesthetically pleasing landscaping and open space areas which enhance the desirability of living in the district, on account of its promotion of evening business and industry vitality, and contribution to a positive nighttime visual image. A2 Parcels in this zone are condominium type homes with open space areas located along the fringes of the zone. Due to the nature and higher density of the parcels and the higher intensity of the property use, the parcels derive benefits such as providing a more peaceful and relaxed lifestyle due to the surrounding open space areas. A3 Parcels in this zone are made up of condominiums and apartment complexes with smaller areas of open space within the zone. On account of the denser housing within this zone, Zone A3 is distinctly benefited by the interspersed open space areas within the zone. Although open space areas are smaller than in other zones, the incorporation of such areas into Zone A3 's higher-intensity property uses peculiarly benefits A3's parcels by providing aesthetically pleasing landscaping and enhancing the desirability of living in Zone A3. March 11,2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 A4 Parcels in this zone are condominium type homes. The open space areas are in close proximity to the condominiums in this zone, thus providing the zone's parcels with benefits such as the enhancement of the quality of life within the community characterized by openness, landscape and natural vistas, wildlife and relaxed, peaceful living. A5 Parcels in this zone are made up of detached single-family homes with large open space areas in close proximity. Zone A5 parcels derive a benefit particular to their zone, based on the significant size and proximity of the open space areas to the parcels. The large open spaces in the vicinity of the parcels contribute to lower housing density due to the dedication of acreage for landscaping and natural areas, which thereby reduce the number of buildable parcels. A6 Parcels in this zone are made up of detached single-family homes with open space areas located along the fringes of the zone. Having the open space areas along the perimeter of the zone is advantageous to the parcels within Zone A6 due to the open space areas' positive results on the parcels, such as attracting natural flora and fauna, providing a more peaceful and relaxed lifestyle. A7 Parcels in this zone are made up of detached single-family homes. The open space areas are in close proximity to the single-family homes. These open spaced areas are connected with paseos that include concrete walkways and lights. These paseos provide for safe pedestrian travel within the zone and in to adjacent zone A9. AS Parcels in this zone are made up of 4-plexes with open space areas located along the fringes of the zone that provide a barrier from the major arterial roadway. The strategic location of open space areas at the fringe create an aesthetically pleasing yet practical perimeter around the zone, which provides a more peaceful and relaxed lifestyle by attracting natural flora and fauna to Zone A8 parcels which, because of the close proximity to major arterial roadways, would not otherwise receive such benefit. Moreover, the higher-intensity property use receives a significant benefit from the natural vistas and landscaping provided by the open space areas. A9 Parcels in this zone are made up of duplexes. The open space areas are in close proximity to the duplexes and are connected by paseos. The paseos are improved with concrete walkways and lights. These paseos provide for safe pedestrian travel within the zone and in to adjacent zone A7, and promote social interaction. All parcels, developed and undeveloped, receive special benefits from the improvements because of the increased desirability of a parcel that is located in an area with landscaping, and open space areas. Public agency parcels within the district will not be used for residential occupancies or commercial/industrial workplaces, and therefore, do not receive special benefit and will not be assessed. The assessments proposed to be levied on each property do not exceed the reasonable cost of proportional special benefit conferred on each property from the funded improvements. FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 ASSESSMENT FORMULA For the Fiscal Year 2011-2012, in compliance with Proposition 218, the City Council is proposing a change to the existing District's assessment rates and will submit the District's benefit analysis methodology and assessment rates to the property owners to vote in support of or in opposition. If the voter's support the proposed benefit methodology and assessment rates, the District will assess the parcels as detailed in the proposed "FY 2011-2012 Assessment Summary and Comparison "chart at the end of the report. The assessment methodology and assessment rates proposed for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 determined that all parcels receive special benefit for the landscape maintenance. In order to March 11, 2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 continue to provide the current level of maintenance services, budget is proposed to be maintain at its current level for the Fiscal Year 2011-2012. Therefore, the assessment rates for the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 are not proposed to be increased. EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 ASSESSMENT FORMULA The Maintenance District No. 4 was established in 1975 prior to Proposition 218 requirements, and the assessment for all properties is based on dwelling units. Each single family residential parcel, condominium complex, apartment, duplex, multi-family residential, and other developed land, is assessed per dwelling unit. The land-use classification for each parcel is based on the 2009-2010 Los Angeles County Auditor/Controller's Assessment Roll. ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS Zone classification depends on the type of dwelling unit and benefit received from the landscaped areas. The land use classification of each parcel is been based on the 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Auditor/Controller's Assessment Roll. The zone classifications are described in the proposed "FY 2011-2012 Assessment Summary and Comparison "chart at the end of the report. March 11,2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 FY 2011-2012 PROPOSED PROPOSITION 218 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY The specific percent budget allocations, which were previously established for each zone, will not be increased in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. To calculate the Assessment Rates, the budget for each zone is divided by the total number of assessment units in the zone. The following table summarizes the different assessment rates for the different zone classifications and compares the proposed assessment with the last year's assessment. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON Zone % of Budget Parcel Count Asmt Units FY 09-10 Assessment Rates FY 10-11 Proposed Assessment Rates (0% Increase) Total Assessment Al 2% 30 411 $ 49.16 $ 49.16 $ 20,808.93 A2 2% 219 319 $ 77.89 $ 77.89 $ 24,846.91 A3 14% 326 2,803 $ 49.33 $ 49.33 $ 142,420.43 A4 11% 500 497 $ 232.48 $ 232.48 $ 119,006.68 A5 4% 157 157 $ 260.98 $ 260.98 $ 40,973.86 A6 7% 246 246 $ 289.99 $ 289.99 $ 71,337.54 A7 52% 1,550 1,549 $ 348.02 $ 348.02 $ 539,082.98 A8 4% 118 117 $ 386.66 $ 386.66 $ 45,239.22 A9 4% 88 88 $ 464.00 $ 464.00 $ 40,832.00 100% 3,234 6,187 $1,044,548.55 BENEFIT ZONE LEGEND Al Commercial Property A2 Condos (Triangle Area, East of Azusa Ave. and north of Woodgrove Park) A3 Condos Minimum Maintenance Benefit A4 Condos Medium Maintenance Benefit A5 Single Family Triangle Area (Special Area, West of Azusa Ave and north of Amar Rd.) A6 Single Family Medium Maintenance Benefit A7 Single Family Maximum Maintenance Benefit A8 4-plex Minimum Maintenance Benefit A9 Duplex Minimum Maintenance Benefit 9 March 11,2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 PART E PROPERTY OWNERS LIST The list with the names and addresses of each property owner of each lot or parcel within the District Boundaries as shown on the last equalized Property Tax Roll of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles, which by reference is hereby made part of this report. This list is keyed to the Assessor's Parcel Numbers as shown on the Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the Clerk of the City of West Covina. PART F ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM The boundaries of the District are within the boundaries of the City of West Covina. A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District, boundaries of any zone within the Assessment District and the lines and dimension of each lot or parcel of land within the district is on file in the Office of the City Engineer and incorporated herein by reference. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Assessment District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles and are, by reference, made part of this report. March 11, 2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 ENGINEER'S REPORT CITY OF WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report directed by the City Council. The undersigned certifies that he or she is a professional Engineer, registered in the State of California. Dated: Shannon A. Yauchzee, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram thereto attached was filed in the Office of the City Clerk on the day of ,2011. City Clerk, City of West Covina County of Los Angeles, California I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram thereto attached was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, on the day of , 2011. City Clerk, City of West Covina County of Los Angeles, California I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Assessment Roll was filed with the County Auditor of the County of Los Angeles, on day of , 2011. City Clerk, City of West Covina County of Los Angeles, California ATTACHMENT "D" WEST COVINA MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 10 YEAR FISCAL PROJECTION - RECOMMENDE PERCENT INCREASE 0.000/0 0.00% 0.000/0 0.000/0 0.000/0 0.00% 0.00% 0.000/0 0.000/0 0.000/0 _ 0.00% FISCAL YEAR 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 ASSESS. INCOME $ 1,040,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 1,040,000 $1,040,000 $1,040,000 INTEREST 10,000 $ 6,500 $ 7,425 S 17,705 $ 17,847 17,847 .... S 17,702 $ 17,408 16,962 $ 16,361 $ 15,599 TRANSFER IN FROM DIST. 2 $ 9,000 $ 11,000 $ 12,000 $ 13,000 $ 14,000 $ 15,000 S 16,000 $ 17,000 $ 18,000 $ 19,000 $ 19,380 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 1,649,653 $ 1,645,339 $ 1,677,541 $ 1,701,351 $ 1,716,020 $ 1,721,307 $ 1,716,964 $ 1,702,740 $ 1,678,379 $ 1,643,789: 1,598,536 TOTAL FUNDING $ 2,708,653 $ 2,712,839 $ 2,746,966 $ 2,772,056 $ 2,787,867 $ 2,794,154 $ 2,790,666 $ 2,777,149 $ 2,753,341 $2,719,150 $2,673,515 MAINTENANCE COSTS $ 1,059,739 $ 1,031,723 1,042,040 1,052,461 5 1,062,985 $ 1,073,615 1,084,351 1,095,195 1,106,147 $1,117,208 $ 1,128,380 TRANSFER OUT $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,405 $ 3,405 . ... CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS :H $ $ - $ TOTAL COST $ 1,063,314 $ 1,035,298 $ 1,045,615 $ 1,056,036 $ 1,066,560 $ 1,077,190 $ 1,087,926 $ 1,098,770 $ 1,109,552 $1,120,613 $1,128,380 ENDING BALANCE :' $ 1,645,339 $ 1,877,541 $ 1,701,351 $ 1,716,020 $ 1,721,307 $ 1,716,964 $ 1,702,740 $ 1,678,379 $ 1,643,789 $1,598,536 $1,545,135 - - - CASH FLOW $ 529,870 $ 515,862 $ 521,020 $ 526,230 $ 531,493 $ 536,808 $ 542,176 $ 547,597 $ 553,073 $ 558,604 $ 564,190 OVER/UNDER S 1115470 , , 1,161,680 $ 1,180,331 _ 1,189,790 $ 1,189,814 $ .1480,156 $ 1,160,565 1,130,781 S 1,090,716 1,039,932 980,945 Assessment of Highest Zone $ 464.00 $ 464.00 $ 464.00 5 464.00 $ 464.00 5 464.00 $ 464.00 $ 464.00 $ 464.00 $ 464.00 $ 464.00 ASSUMPTIONS: A) Interest is 3% of the previous year ending balance B) 1% increase in maintenance cost each year due to inflatic C) Previously approved maximum highest rate of $464 DEFINITIONS: Amount needed to assure that the district operates in a net positive cash flow position CASH FLOW: throughout the year to account for the fact that the revenues from the levy of the assessment is collected twice a year on the property tax bills OVER / UNDER: Amount over or under the desired Cash Flow amou PRIOR YEAR BALANCE: Funds available at the end of the previous fiscal ye Admin. & Overhead 8% Liability Ins 0.37% Personnel Services 20% EMU 11••••••• 111•••••••••• Mill••••••••••••• ••11111•••••1111MIIIIME MNIIME•11111•MM•MIII• ••••••••••••••••••••••• MEMII••III•••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••111•••II ••••••••n•••1111111111111••••••LPARE ti••••••••••••••••••••Pmern Ell••••••••••••••••••=EMEN ItRIMIII••••••••••IiimMaNE MINIMMEINEMmtwEill NENummownEMINE IMENIMMEN NNW EMENNEIREMOS ' MEM NE 1 .44141111110 .440:444.14.14.4t44* 404.4+. tag 4444. 4" Service Contracts 37% Supplies 2.53% LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT "E" Utilities 32% ATTACHMENT "F" RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE CERTIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 7, 2011 FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 COMMENCING IN FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 TO FUND THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN LANDSCAPING AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, did in Resolution No. 2011- adopted March 1,2011, pursuant to the provisions of Proposition 218 and the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", of the State of California, require its State certified registered professional engineer to make and file with the City Clerk of the City Council a report in writing, relating to assessments to fund the operation and maintenance of certain landscaping and appurtenant facilities that exist in the area of West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 4; and WHEREAS, the West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 is exempt from the ballot requirements of Proposition 218 providing the assessments do not increase pursuant to Article XIII D, § 3(b) (property owner consent to initial formation); and WHEREAS, on 5th day of April 2011, the State certified registered professional engineer filed in the Office of the City Clerk of said City, the report in writing responsive to the requirements of said Resolution No. 2011- and WHEREAS, said City Clerk has presented the said report to the City Council of said City and said Council has considered said report; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. That the report of the State certified registered professional engineer of the City of West Covina, California, dated March 11, 2011, which was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of West Covina, California, on the 5 th day of April 2011, be and the same is hereby preliminarily approved subject to modification at the Protest Hearing. SECTION 2. A) By the adoption of this resolution and preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report, the City Council declares its intention to levy and collect West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 assessments in the amounts set out in the Engineer's Report to fund operation and maintenance of certain landscaping and appurtenant facilities that exist in the area of West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 commencing with Fiscal Year 2011-2012. B) West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 is generally located in the southeasterly part of the City of West Covina. C) The existing and proposed improvements are generally described as to landscaping, irrigation, hardscape, and paseo lighting on 130 acres of public open space within the boundaries of the district. D) Reference is made to the Engineer's Report, on file with the City Clerk, for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district, any zones therein, and the proposed assessments. E) The improvements and assessments shall be done under Proposition 218 and the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, as amended. ZARESOLUT1ON - 2011 \MD 4 ER Approval 2011-2012 Resol.cloc The assessments shall be collected on the property tax bill with and subject to the same procedures and penalties for delinquency as general county property taxes. SECTION 3. Public Hearing' That a Public Hearing is set for Tuesday, June 7, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 1444 West Garvey Avenue in the City of West Covina, to take the testimony on the issue of whether or not the assessments should be approved. SECTION 4. Publication: The City Clerk shall publish this resolution at least ten days before the hearing as required by Government Code § 54954.6 (display ad). SECTION 5. The City Council finds that the levy and collection of these assessments is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under § 15273 of the Guidelines, as none of the proceeds will be used for capital expenses, but will be used instead for operation and maintenance. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5 th day of April 2011. Mayor Steve Herfert ATTESTED: City Clerk Laurie Carrico I LAURIE CARRICO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of April 2011, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk Laurie Carrico APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Arnold Alvarez-Glasman ZARESOLUTION - 2011 MD 4 ER Approval 2011-2012 Resol.doc CiO) of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager ITEM NO. 8 and City Council DATE April 5, 2011 FROM: Shannon A. Yauchzee, Director/City Engineer Public Works Department SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT RECOMMENDATION: is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE CERTIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 7, 2011 FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 COMMENCING IN FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 TO FUND THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN LANDSCAPING AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT DISCUSSION: Maintenance District No. 6 was established in 1980 at the request of the owner of the development in lieu of forming a Homeowners' Association. Maintenance District No. 6 is generally located in the easterly end of the City known as South Hills. (Please refer to the attached map.) The funds collected by the district are used to maintain landscaping and irrigation in public open space areas within its boundaries. Maintenance District No. 6 contains 234 single-family dwellings and approximately 12 acres of landscaped and irrigated areas, in addition to approximately 65 acres of natural area. At its regular meeting on March 1, 2011, the West Covina City Council adopted a resolution ordering the Engineer's Report. It is proposed that the City Council adopt a resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report for West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 and declare its intention to levy and collect assessments within the district for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 and set the date of June 7, 2011, for the Public Hearing. The process of renewing the Maintenance District has been complicated by the passage of Proposition 218 in November 1996. In general, it established extensive balloting requirements for any new or increased assessments. Proposition 218 contains an exemption for assessments imposed pursuant to a petition by the person(s) owning all the parcels within the district. Maintenance District No. 6 satisfies this condition and thus is exempt from the provisions of Proposition 218. However, the exemption would not be applicable if the assessments were to be increased beyond the maximum initially established rates or the methodology of levying the assessments was changed. Since neither rates nor assessment methodology have been changed, the renewal for these districts will be completed in accordance with the requirements of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 specifies the procedures for renewal of Maintenance Districts. On March 1, 2011, the City Council took the initial step of the renewal process by adopting a resolution ordering the Engineer's Report. This report has been completed and includes plans and specifications for improvements, estimated costs, assessment diagrams, and assessments spread to cover the estimated costs. The reports were prepared in accordance with Division 15, Article 4, Chapter 1, Part 2 of the California Streets and Highways Code and are included as Attachment "C" of this report. ZAAGENDA - MINIX, ER Approval 2011-2012.doc Andrew G. Pasrnant, City Manager and City Council Page 2 — April 5,2011 The next step in the renewal process is the preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report and adoption of the Resolution of Intention concerning the levy and collection of assessments for each district. Also, a date for the Public Hearing must be set as required in the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. At the public hearing, the City Council will consider all written and oral comments regarding the level of assessments and the maintenance and capital improvement work being done within each district. The renewal process requires that a. public notice be posted and published in a locally circulated newspaper, but does not require notices be mailed to each resident. Upon the conclusion of each hearing, the City Council should adopt a resolution confirming the diagram and assessment levy either as proposed or as changed by the City Council. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may choose to reduce or increase the proposed assessments for each district. However, if the rates were increased beyond the rates approved upon establishment, the City Council would have to comply with the balloting provisions in Proposition 218. Attached is a series of "10-Year Fiscal Projections" for Maintenance District No. 6. The 10-year projection is shown for planning purposes only and does not commit a future City Council to any such action. Every year this assessment is evaluated and acted on independent of past projections. Staff recommends maintaining the assessment rates at their current level and reduce the level of services to keep the district viable. The attached "10-Year Fiscal Projection" shows rates being maintained at their current level and a depletion of the reserves over the ten- years (See Attachment "D"). To reduce the assessment rates, the districts reserve will deplete at faster pace requiring to City's General Fund to subsidize the district. To increase the assessment rates, the district would need to comply with the mail ballot provision of Proposition 218. FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Engineer's Report for Maintenance District No. 6 recommends that the assessment rates be maintained at their current levels. The rate in Maintenance District No. 6 is based on a special uniform benefit to the property owners and is recommended to remain at its current level of $650.00 per lot annually ($54.16 per month). The projected income from the recommended rates is $156,650. The proposed Operating Budget for the district is $161,471. This is an increase of 0.29% when compared to the approved/amended budget of $161,003 for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. The proposed Operating Budget funds only the regular landscape maintenance. Ongoing improvements such as irrigation system improvements, enhancement to existing landscaping, tree trimming, and other extras are being eliminated to maintain the operating budget within projected revenues from the capped assessment rates. In addition, there are no new Capital Improvement Projects proposed in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. ZAAGENDA -201 1\MD6 ER Approval 2011-2012.doc Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council Page 3 — April 5,2011 There are no legal requirements or formal guidelines for the amount of reserves in an assessment district, however at least 50% is required to cover cash flow. A reserve between 100% and 200% is recommended by staff to cover cash flow, future capital projects, emergencies, and as a benefit it also provides interest income. Prep ed by: Miguel Hernandez Civil Engineering Associate Reviewed/Approved by: Finance ttachments: "A" - MD6 Map "B" - 15 Year Rate History "C" - MD6 Engineers Report - MD6 10 Year Fiscal Projections "F" - Resolution Reviewed/Approved by: (Shannon A. Yauchzee Director/City Engineer ZI1AGENDA - 201 llMD6 ER Approval 2011 -2012.doc ATTACHMENT "A" CITY OF WEST COVINA MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 HEMSTEAD 1 1 CT. / 01. •=1.• ••••••••••-•..- n•n• ATTACHMENT "B" MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NO. 6 15-YEAR RATE HISTORY Fiscal Year Per Lot 2011-2012 Proposed $ 650.00 2010-2011 8 650.00 2009-2010 5 617.41 2008-2009 $ 588.01 2007-2008 $ 520.36 2006-2007 5 460.49 2005-2006 $ 407.52 2004-2005 $ 360.63 2003-2004 8 319.15 2002-2003 S 282.43 2001-2002 $ 282.43 2000-2001 $ 282.43 1999-2000 $ 282.83 1998-1999 5 282.43 1997-1998 $ 282.43 1996-1997 5 282.43 ZAAGENDA 201111n06 ER Approval 201 I -2012.doc March 11, 2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 ATTACHMENT "C" ENGINEER'S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 CITY OF WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 March 11.201! Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Report Part A - Plans and Specifications Part B - Estimate of Costs Part C - Assessment Rolls Part 0 - Method of Apportionment 5 ummary of Assessments Part E - Property Owners List Part F - Assessment Diagram March 1 I , 2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 CITY OF WEST COVINA FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 SECTION 22500 THROUGH 22679 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE Pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, State of California, in connection with proceedings for: CITY OF WEST COVINA LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 Hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District" or "District," I, Shannon A. Yauchzee, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer of the City of West Covina, submit herewith the "Report" consisting of six parts as follows: PART A PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Plans and specifications for the improvements are as set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on file in the Office of the City Engineer and incorporated herein by reference. PART B ESTIMATE OF COST An estimate of the costs of the proposed improvements, including incidental cost and expenses in connection therewith, is as set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. PART C ASSESSMENT ROLLS An assessment of the estimate cost of the improvements on each benefited lot or parcel of land within the Assessment District. PART D METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT The method of apportionment of assessments, indicating the proposed assessment of the net amount of the costs and expenses of the improvements to be assessed upon the several lots and parcels of land within the Assessment District, in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots and parcels. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk and by reference is made a part hereof. PART E PROPERTY OWNER LIST A list of names and addresses of the owners of real property within the Assessment District as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles. The list is keyed to the records of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles, which are incorporated herein by reference. 1 March 11,2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 PART F ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM The diagram of the Assessment District boundaries showing the exterior boundaries of the Assessment District, the boundaries of any zones within the Assessment District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the Assessment District is on file in the Office of the City Engineer and incorporated herein by reference. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Assessment District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles for fiscal year to which this report applies. The Assessor's maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this report. March 11,2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 PART A PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS The facilities, which have been constructed within the City of West Covina, and those which may be subsequently constructed, will be serviced and maintained as generally described as follows: DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CITY OF WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. The existing facilities to be maintained and serviced include public open space, manufactured slopes, and appurtenant facilities. There are approximately 12 acres of landscaped and irrigated area and 65 acres of natural open space within the District. The District will fund the costs in connection with the district maintenance and servicing including, but not limited to, personnel, electrical energy, water, materials, contracting services, and other expenses necessary for the satisfactory operation of these facilities. Reference is made to Part "D" of this report for a discussion of the Zones of Benefit and the facilities associated with them, which are serviced and maintained. The facilities are described as follows: Landscaping and Appurtenant Facilities Facilities include but are not limited to trees, irrigation system, hardscape, fixtures, sidewalk maintenance resulting from landscape growth and appurtenant facilities, in open spaces and dedicated easements within the boundaries of said Assessment District. Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual operation, maintenance and servicing of the landscaping, and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health, and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; and the cleaning. Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of landscaping and the maintenance or operation of landscaping or appurtenant facilities. The plans and specifications for the improvements are on file in the Office of the City Engineer and are by reference herein made a part of this report. March 11,2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 PART B ESTIMATE OF COST The City's budget for the operation and service costs, shown below, detail the estimated costs and fund balances for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 as available at the time of preparation of this report. The 1972 Act provides that the total cost can be recovered in the assessment spread including incidental expenses. The latter can include engineering fees, legal fees, printing, mailing, postage, publishing, and all other related costs identified with the district proceedings. EXPENDITURES Estimated expenditures for maintenance and operation for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 are as follows: DIRECT MAINTENANCE A. Personnel Services $ 39,819 Sub-total B. Material and Services 1. Maintenance Contracts $ 62,700 2. Utilities (electricity & water) $ 41,900 3. Property and Liability Insurance $ 811 4. Administration and Overhead $ 12,145 Sub-total $ 39,819 $ 117,556 C. Equipment Outlay $ 0 TOTAL $ 157,375 II. ENGINEERING AND INCIDENTALS A. Personnel Services TOTAL $ 4,096 III FUND TRANSFER TOTAL $ 3,575 IV CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT TOTAL S 0 TOTAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET V. CONTINGENCY AND RESERVES A. Cash Flow Reserves $ 80,736 B. Contingency $ 53,084 TOTAL CONTINGENCY AND RESERVES TOTAL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES $ 165,046 $ 133,820 REVENUES Projected revenues available to the District for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 are as follows: Assessment Income $156,651 Interest S 0 TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUE 156,651 FUND BALANCE (Prior fiscal year) $ 142,215 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set-up for the revenue and expenditures of the district. Funds raised by assessment shall be used only for the purpose as stated herein. A contribution to the district by the City may be made to reduce assessments, as the City Council deems appropriate. Any balance or deficit remaining on July must be carried over to the next fiscal year. March 11,2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 PART C ASSESSMENT ROLL The proposed assessment, commencing with Fiscal Year 2011-2012, and the amount of assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the latest roll at the Assessor's Office, are contained in the Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of West Covina, which is incorporated herein by reference. The description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles and these records are, by reference, made part of this report. PART D METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT GENERAL Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, permits the establishment of assessment district by cities for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which include the construction, maintenance and servicing of street lights, traffic signals, landscaping, and park and recreational facilities. Section 22573, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires that maintenance assessments be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This section states: "The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements." Because assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are not a tax, and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution. The Act permits the designation of zones of benefits within any individual assessment district if "by reason of variation in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive different degrees of benefit from the improvements" (Section 22574). Thus, the 1972 Act requires the levy of a true "assessment" rather than a "special tax." The Act also permits certain parcels to be exempt from assessment. Excepted from these assessments are areas of all publicly owned property such as: public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, all public easements, right- of-ways, all public parks, public greenbelts and parkways, and all public property being used for public purposes. BENEFIT ANALYSIS All parcels in the City of West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 derive benefit from the open space maintenance. The intent of this report is to establish a methodology that fairly distributes the cost of the system in relation to the benefit received. The assessment ratio for all properties is based on dwelling units. Each single family residential parcel, condominium complex, apartment, duplex, triplex, mobile home park, and other developed land is assessed per dwelling unit. This pro-ration accounts for an adjustment for street right-of-ways and public easements. 5 March 11,201! Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE Trees, landscaping, hardscaping and appurtenant facilities, if well maintained, provide beautification, shade, and enhancement of the desirability of the surroundings, and therefore increase property value. Property values in a community are increased when open space areas are improved, safe, clean, and maintained. Facilities that are unsafe or destroyed by the elements or vandalism decrease surrounding property values. Clean and safe open space areas increase public safety, help reduce crime and enhance the overall quality of life and desirability of an area. Conversely, property values decrease when open space areas are in disrepair, unsafe, and unclean. The United States Department of the Interior, National Park Services, in a publication of June 1984, concluded that, "An investment in parks and recreation helps reduce pollution and noise, makes communities more livable, and increases property value." Additionally, the National Recreation and Park Association, in June 1985, stated, "The recreation value is realized as a rise in the value of land and other property in or near the recreation area, and is of public interest to the taxpayers, who have a stake in a maximum of total assessed value." All properties in the District benefit from the maintenance and servicing of these facilities. Per the 2011-2012 Los County Auditor/Controller's Assessment Roll, there are 253 parcels within the District equaling 241 dwelling units. Therefore, the assessment rate for the District is proposed to be increased by 5.3% and is calculated by dividing $156,650 by 241 dwelling units for an assessment rate of $650.00 per dwelling unit. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY The following table summarizes the assessment rates and compares the proposed assessment with last year's assessment. To calculate the assessment rate, the assessment income is divided by the total number of dwelling units in the District. This is shown more clearly in the following table. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ASSESSMENT YEAR PARCELS DWELLING UNITS (DU) 2011-2012 INCOME 2011-2012 RATE 2010-2011 RATE 2011-2012 253 241 $156,650 $650.00/DU $650.00/DU PART E PROPERTY OWNERS LIST The list with the names and addresses of each property owner of each lot or parcel within the District Boundaries as shown on the last equalized Property Tax Roll of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles, which by reference is hereby made part of this report. This list is keyed to the Assessor's Parcel Numbers as shown on the Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of West Covina. 6 March 11,2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 PART F ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM The boundaries of the District are within the boundaries of the City of West Covina. A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District, boundaries of any zone within the Assessment District and the lines and dimension of each lot or parcel of land within the District is on file in the Office of the City Engineer and incorporated herein by reference. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Assessment District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles and are, by reference, made part of this report. March 11, 2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 ENGINEER'S REPORT CITY OF WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report directed by the City Council. The undersigned certifies that he or she is a professional Engineer, registered in the State of California. Dated: Shannon A. Yauchzee, F. E. Public Works Director/City Engineer I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed in the Office of the City Clerk on the day of ,2011. City Clerk, City of West Covina County of Los Angeles, California I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, on the day of , 2011. City Clerk, City of West Covina County of Los Angeles, California I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Assessment Roll was filed with the County Auditor of the County of Los Angeles, on day of , 2011. City Clerk, City of West Covina County of Los Angeles, California ZAAGENDA -201 I1MD6 ER Approval 201 1 -20 12.doc 156,651 $ 1,193 $ 120,500 $ 278,345 :161,471 $ 3,575 $ 165,046 $ 113,299 $ 80,736 •$ 32,563 $ _156;651 977 $ 113,299-: $ 270,927 $ .:461,471 3,575 $ - $ 165,046 $ 105,881 $ 80,736 $ 25,145 ATTACHMENT "D" WEST COVINA MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 10 YEAR FISCAL PROJECTION - RECOMMENDED 'PERCENT INCREASE 5.28% 000/0 0.000/0 0.00% 00°/0 0.00% I 0.00% I 0.00% IFISCAL YEAR 1-1 12-13 13-1 14-15 5-1 16-17 16-18 I 17-18 I 18-19 $: • 156;i651d••$ 156,651 1 $ 156r651 :1 :.$ 1$6,651 I $::::::156;051 $ 156,651 $ $ 318,055 - 1:64 $ 2,189 $ 153,476 $ 312,316 $ 1,996 147,270 $ 305,918 $ 1,804 $ 140,872 $ 299,327 $ 1,606 $ 134,281 $ 292,538 $ 1,403 7't492:: $ 285,546 $ 161,004 $ 161,471 161,471 E$ 161,471 : 161,471: 1.:, S 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ $ $ $ $ 164,579 $ 165,046 $ 165,046 $ 165,046 $ 165,046 $ 165,046 :$: :153,476 $ 147,270.: $ 140,872 $ 134,281 $ 127,492 $ 120,500 $ 80,502 $ 80,736 $ 80,736 $ 80,736 $ 80,736 $ 80,736 72,974 $ 66,535 $ 60,136 $ 53,545 $ 46,757 $ 39,765 $ 754 $ 11:154681 $ 263,286 $..: :1E4;471 3,575 - $ 165,046 $ 80,736 :S 17,51)5H $ 156,651 525 $ 98,240 $ 255,416 .$ 161,471. 3,575 $ - $ 165,046 $ 90,370 $ 80,736 $ 9,635 'ASSESSMENT RATE I $ 650.00 I $ 650.00 I $ 650.00 $ 650.00 $ 650.00 I $ 650.00 I $ 650.00 I $ 650.00 I $ 650.00 I $ 650.00 ASSUMPTIONS: A) Interest is 3.0% of the previous year ending balance B) Previously approved maximum rate of $650, may not be increased further without vote C) Reduce maintenance cost by $5,000 in FY 2011-2012 and FY 2012-2013 DEFINITIONS: Amount needed to assure that the District operates in a net positive cash flow position CASH FLOW: throughout the year to account for the fact that the revenues from the levy of the assessment collected twice a year on the property tax bills. OVER/UNDER: Amount over or under the desired Cash Flow amount. PRIOR YEAR BALANCE: Funds available at the end of the previous fiscal year. Personnel Services 27% Utilities 26% ts 39% LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. ATTACHMENT "E" Admin. & Overhead 8% ATTACHMENT "F" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE CERTIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 7, 2011 FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 COMMENCING IN FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 TO FUND THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN LANDSCAPING AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, did in Resolution No. 2011- adopted March 1,2011, pursuant to the provisions of Proposition 218 and the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", of the State of California, require its State certified registered professional engineer to make and file with the City Clerk of the City Council a report in writing, relating to assessments to fund the operation and maintenance of certain landscaping and appurtenant facilities that exist in the area of West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 6; and WHEREAS, the West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 is exempt from the ballot requirements of Proposition 218 providing the assessments do not increase pursuant to Article XIII D, § 3(b) (property owner consent to initial formation); and WHEREAS, on 5111 day of April 2011, the State certified registered professional engineer filed in the Office of the City Clerk of said City, the report in writing responsive to the requirements of said Resolution No. 2011-; and WHEREAS, said City Clerk has presented the said report to the City Council of said City and said Council has considered said report; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. That the report of the State certified registered professional engineer of the City of West Covina, California, dated March 11, 2011, which was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of West Covina, California, on the 5 th day of April 2011, be and the same is hereby preliminarily approved subject to modification at the Protest Hearing. SECTION 2. A) By the adoption of this resolution and preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report, the City Council declares its intention to levy and collect West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 assessments in the amounts set out in the Engineer's Report to fund operation and maintenance of certain landscaping and appurtenant facilities that exist in the area of West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 commencing with Fiscal Year 2011-2012. B) West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No 6 is generally located easterly part of the City of West Covina on the westerly-facing slopes of the San Jose Hills. C) The existing and proposed improvements are generally described as to landscaping and irrigation in public open space areas within the boundaries of the district. D) Reference is made to the Engineer's Report, on file with the City Clerk, for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district, any zones therein, and the proposed assessments. E) The improvements and assessments shall be done under Proposition 218 and the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, as amended. ZARESOLLIT1ON - 2011\MD 6 ER Approval 2011-2012.doc F) The assessments shall be collected on the property tax bill with and subject to the same procedures and penalties for delinquency as general county property taxes. SECTION 3. Public Hearing: That a Public Hearing is set for Tuesday, June 7. 2011, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 1444 West Garvey Avenue in the City of West Covina, to take the testimony on the issue of whether or not the assessments should be approved. SECTION 4. Publication: The City Clerk shall publish this resolution at least ten days before the hearing as required by Government Code § 54954.6 (display ad). SECTION 5. The City Council finds that the levy and collection of these assessments is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under § 15273 of the Guidelines, as none of the proceeds will be used for capital expenses, but will be used instead for operation and maintenance. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution. PPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5 th day of April 201 Mayor Steve Herfert ATTESTED: ity Clerk Laurie Carrico I LAURIE CARRICO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of April 2011, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk Laurie Carrico APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Arnold Alvarez-Glasman 1RESOLUT1ON - 201 IND 6 ER Approval 2011-2012.doc City of West C'ovina Memorandum AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 DATE April 5, 2011 TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council FROM: Shannon A. Yauchzee, Director/City Engineer Public Works Department SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE CERTIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 7, 2011 FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 COMMENCING IN FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 TO FUND THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN LANDSCAPING AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT DISCUSSION: Maintenance District No. 7 was established in 1980 at the request of the owner of the development in lieu of forming a Homeowners' Association. The district is generally located in the easterly end of the City. (Please refer to the attached map.) The funds collected by the district are used to maintain landscaping and irrigation in public open space areas within its boundaries. Currently, Maintenance District No. 7 contains 300 improved single residential parcels and approximately 13.75 acres of landscaped and irrigated areas, in addition to 83 acres of natural area that is only 55% developed. When development is complete, Maintenance District No. 7 will contain 381 improved single residential parcels, 25 acres of landscaped and irrigated area and 105 acres of natural area. At its regular meeting on March 1, 2011, the West Covina City Council adopted a resolution ordering the Engineer's Report. It is proposed that the City Council adopt a resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report for West Covina Landscape Maintenance Districts No. 7 and declare its intention to levy and collect assessments within the district for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 and set the date of June 7,2011 for the Public Hearing. The process of renewing the Maintenance District has been complicated by the passage of Proposition 218 in November 1996. In general, it established extensive balloting requirements for any new or increased assessments. Proposition 218 contains an exemption for assessments imposed pursuant to a petition by the person(s) owning all the parcels within the district. Maintenance District No. 7 satisfies this condition and thus is exempt from the provisions of Proposition 218. However, the exemption would not be applicable if the assessments were to be increased beyond the maximum initially established rates or the methodology of levying the assessments was changed. Since neither rates nor assessment methodology are changed, the renewal for the district will be completed in accordance with the requirements of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 specifies the procedures for renewal of Maintenance Districts. On March 1, 2011, the City Council took the initial step in the renewal process by adopting a resolution ordering the Engineer's Report. This report has been completed and includes plans and specifications for improvements, estimated costs, assessment diagrams, and assessments spread to cover the estimated costs. The report was prepared in accordance with Division 15, Article 4, Chapter 1, Part 2, of the California Streets and Highways Code and is included as Attachment -C" of this report. ZAAGENDA -201 IND7 ER Approval 2011-2012.doc Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council Page 2 — April 5, 201 I The next step in the renewal process is the preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report and adoption of the Resolution of Intention concerning the levy and collection of assessments for each district. Also, a date for the public hearing must be set as required in the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. At the public hearing, the City Council will consider all written and oral comments regarding the level of assessments and the maintenance and capital improvement work being done within each district. The renewal process requires that a public notice be posted and published in a locally circulated newspaper, but does not require notices be mailed to each resident. Upon the conclusion of each hearing, the City Council should adopt a resolution confirming the diagram and assessment levy either as proposed or as changed by the City Council. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may choose to reduce or increase the proposed assessments for the district. However, if the rates were increased beyond the rates approved upon establishment, the City Council would have to comply with the balloting provisions in Proposition 218. Attached is a series of "10-Year Fiscal Projections" for Maintenance District No. 7. The projections show two different scenarios and the effects on the district. The 10-year projection is shown for planning purposes only and does not commit a future City Council to any such action. Every year this assessment is evaluated and acted on independent of past projections. Listed below are two alternatives. 1. Staff recommends a rate increase of 2% to stabilize the reserves and minimize the impact on the residents (see Attachment "D-1"). Rates to remain at their current level (0% increase); reserve would be depleted by Fiscal Year 2015-2016 (Attachment "D-2"). This would result in the need to reduce services or subsidize the district with General Funds. FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Engineer's Report for Maintenance District No. 7 recommends that the assessment rates be increased by 2% from their current levels. The rates in Maintenance District No. 7 are based on special uniform benefit to the property owners. The recommended 2% rate increase equates to an increase from $428.72 to $437.29 per developed lot and from $128.62 to $131.19 per undeveloped lot. The projected amount to be raised from the recommended rates is $141,814. In addition, $1,605 is projected from interest income for total projected revenue of $143,419. The proposed Operating Budget for the district is $148,083. This is an increase of 0.69% when compared to the approved/amended budget of $147,063 for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. The proposed Operating Budget funds not only the regular landscape maintenance but is also able to fund ongoing improvements, such as irrigation system improvements and enhancement to existing landscaping, without depleting the reserves. In addition, there are no new Capital Improvement Projects proposed in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. Upon 100% completion of the developments within Maintenance District No. 7, there will be 381 improved residential lots. The district's open space area will increase to 25 acres of landscaped and irrigated area and 105 acres of natural area, for a total of 130 acres. The cost to maintain this area is estimated at $285,000. This estimated cost is based on the City's present average of $300 per acre per month for landscaped and irrigated areas and $125 per acre per month for natural areas. ZAAGENDA - 20111MD7 ER Approval 201 l -2012.doc Andrew G. Pastnant, City Manager arid City Council Page 3 — April 5.2011 The effects on the reserve will vary depending on the actions taken in regards to the rates. Listed below are two 10-Year Fiscal Projections and the effects on the reserves. It is recommended to increase the rates by 2% for Fiscal year 2011-2012 (per Attachment "D-1"), which will stabilize the reserves and minimize the impact on the residents. In Fiscal Year 2011-2012, the rate will be $437.29 for developed lots and $131.19 for undeveloped lots. This will also allow for ongoing improvements without depleting reserves. To maintain the rates at their current level (0% increase) with no increase upon the depletion of the reserves by the end of Fiscal Year 2019-2020, will result in either a reduction in services or subsidizing funds to the district from General Funds as shown in Attachment "D- 2." There are no legal requirements or formal guidelines for the amount of reserves in an assessment district, however, at least 50% is required to cover cash flow. A reserve between 100% and 200% is recommended by staff to cover cash flow, future capital projects, emergencies, and as a benefit it also provides interest income. Prepa by: Miguel Hernandez Civil Engineering Associate Reviewed/Approved by: Finance Attachments: "A" — MD7 Map "B" - 15 Year Rate History "C" — MD7 Engineers Report "D" — MD7 10 Year Fiscal Projections - Chart "F" - Resolution Reviewed/Approved by: Shannon A. Yauchzee Director/City Engineer ZAAGENDA - 201 111vID7 ER Approval 2011-2012.doe CITY OF WEST COVINA MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 41' ATTACHMENT "A" ATTACHMENT "B" MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NO. 7 15-YEAR RATE HISTORY Fiscal Year MD Per Improved 7 Lot Unimproved 2011-2012 Proposed $ 437.29 $ 131.19 2010-11 $ 428.72 $ 128.62 2009-10 $ 389.74 $ 116.92 2008-09 5 354.31 $ 106.29 2007-08 $ 322.10 $ 96.63 2006-07 5 292.82 $ 87.85 2005-06 $ 266.20 $ 79.86 2004-05 5 242.00 $ 72.60 2003-04 $ 220.00 $ 66.00 2002-03 $ 200.00 $ 60.00 2001-02 200.00 $ 60.00 2000-01 5 200.00 $ 60.00 99-2000 S 200.00 $ 60.00 98-99 $ 200.00 $ 60.00 97-98 $ 200.00 $ 60.00 96-97 $ 200.00 $ 60.00 LIACENDA - 2011 \114D7 ER Approval 2011-2012.doc ATTACHMENT "C" ENGINEER'S REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 CITY OF WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 March 11, 2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Report Part A - Plans and Specifications Part B - Estimate of Costs Part C Assessment Rolls Part D - Method of Apportionment Summary of Assessments art E - Property Owners List Part F - Assessment Diagram March 11,2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 CITY OF WEST COVINA FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 SECTION 22500 THROUGH 22679 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE Pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, State of California, in connection with proceedings for: CITY OF WEST COVINA LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 Hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District" or "District," I, Shannon A. Yauchzee, P. E., Public Works Director/City Engineer of the City of West Covina, submit herewith the "Report" consisting of six parts as follows: PART A PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Plans and specifications for the improvements are as set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on file in the Office of the City Engineer and incorporated herein by reference. PART B ESTIMATE OF COST An estimate of the costs of the proposed improvements, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith, are set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. PART C ASSESSMENT ROLLS An assessment of the estimate cost of the improvements on each benefited lot or parcel of land within the Assessment District. PART D METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT The method of apportionment of assessments, indicating the proposed assessment of the net amount of the costs and expenses of the improvements to be assessed upon the several lots and parcels of land within the Assessment District, in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots and parcels. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk and by reference is made a part hereof. PART E PROPERTY OWNER LIST A list of names and addresses of the owners of real property within the Assessment District, as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles. The list is keyed to the records of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles, which are incorporated herein by reference. 1 March 11, 20 L 1 Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 PART F ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM The diagram of the Assessment District boundaries showing the exterior boundaries of the Assessment District, the boundaries of any zones within the Assessment District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the Assessment District is on file in the Office of the City Engineer and incorporated herein by reference. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Assessment District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles for fiscal year to which this report applies. The Assessor's maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this report. March 11, 2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 PART A PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS The facilities, which have been constructed within the City of West Covina, and those which may be subsequently constructed, will be serviced and maintained as generally described as follows: DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CITY OF WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 The existing facilities to be maintained and serviced include public open spaces and manufactured slopes and appurtenant facilities. There are approximately 13.75 acres of landscaped and irrigated area and 83 acres of natural open space within the District. The District will fund the costs in connection with the District maintenance and servicing including, but not limited to, personnel, electrical energy, water, materials, contracting services, and other expenses necessary for the satisfactory operation of these facilities. Reference is made to Part "D" of this report for a discussion of the Zones of Benefit and the facilities associated with them, which are serviced and maintained. The facilities are described as follows: Landscaping and Appurtenant Facilities Facilities include but are not limited to: trees, irrigation system, hardscape, fixtures, sidewalk maintenance resulting from landscape growth and appurtenant facilities, in public open space areas and dedicated easements within the boundaries of said Assessment District. Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual operation, maintenance and servicing of the landscaping and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health, and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; and the cleaning. Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of landscaping and the maintenance or operation of landscaping or appurtenant facilities. The plans and specifications for the improvements are on file in the Office of the City Engineer and are by reference herein made a part of this report. 3 March 11, 2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 PART B ESTIMATE OF COST The City's budget for the operation and services costs, shown below, detail the estimated costs and fund balances for Fiscal Year 2011-2012, as available at the time of preparation of this report. The 1972 Act provides that the total cost can be recovered in the assessment spread including incidental expenses. The latter can include engineering fees, legal fees, printing, mailing, postage, publishing, and all other related costs identified with the district proceedings. EXPENDITURES Estimated expenditures for maintenance and operation for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 are as follows: I. DIRECT MAINTENANCE A. Personnel Services Sub-total B. Material and Services 1. Maintenance Contracts 2. Utilities 3. Property and Liability Insurance 4. Administration and Overhead Sub-total C. Equipment Outlay Sub-total TOTAL II. ENGINEERING AND INCIDENTALS A. Personnel Services TOTAL III FUND TRANSFER TOTAL IV. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT TOTAL TOTAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET V CONTINGENCY AND RESERVES A. Cash Flow Reserves B. Contingency $ 41,029, $ 41,029 $ 64,300 $ 25,800 $ 828 $ 12,031 $ 102,959 0 $ 143.988 $ 4,095 $ 3,575 $151,658 $ 74,042 $ 151,588 TOTAL CONTINGENCY AND RESERVES $225,630 TOTAL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES $377,288 REVENUES Projected revenues available to the District for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 are as follows: I. Assessment Income II. Interest TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUE FUND BALANCE (Reserves from Prior Year) TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $ 141,814 $ 1.605 $ 143,419 $ 233,869 $ 377,288 The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set-up for the revenue and expenditures of the District. Funds raised by assessment shall be used only for the purpose as stated herein. A contribution to the District by the City may be made to reduce assessments, as the City Council deems appropriate. Any balance or deficit remaining on July 1 st must be carried over to the next fiscal year. March 11, 2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 PART C ASSESSMENT ROLL The proposed assessment, commencing with for Fiscal Year 2011-2012, and amount of assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the latest roll at the Assessor's Office, are contained in the Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of West Covina, which is incorporated herein by reference. The description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles and these records are, by reference, made a part of this report. PART D METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT GENERAL Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, permits the establishment of assessment district by cities for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which include the construction, maintenance and servicing of street lights, traffic signals, landscaping, and park and recreational facilities. Section 22573, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires that maintenance assessments be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This section states: "The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements." Because assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are not a tax, and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution The Act permits the designation of zones of benefits within any individual assessment district if "by reason of variation in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive different degrees of benefit from the improvements" (Section 22574). Thus, the 1972 Act requires the levy of a true "assessment" rather than a "special tax." The Act also permits certain parcels to be exempt from assessment. Excepted from these assessments are areas of all publicly owned property such as: public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, all public easements, right- of-ways, all public parks, public greenbelts and parkways, and all public property being used for public purposes. BENEFIT ANALYSIS All parcels in the City of West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 derive benefit from the open space maintenance. The intent of this report is to establish a methodology that fairly distributes the cost of the system in relation to the benefit received. The assessment ratio for all properties is based on dwelling units. Each single family residential parcel, condominium complex, apartment, duplex, triplex, mobile home park, and other developed land is assessed per dwelling unit. This pro-ration accounts for an adjustment for street right-of-ways and public easements. 5 March 11,2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE Trees, landscaping, hardscaping, and appurtenant facilities, if well maintained, provide beautification, shade, and enhancement of the desirability of the surroundings, and therefore increase property value. Property values in a community are increased when open space areas are improved, safe, clean, and maintained. Facilities that are unsafe or destroyed by the elements or vandalism decrease surrounding property values. Clean and safe open space areas increase public safety, help reduce crime and enhance the overall quality of life and desirability of an area. Conversely, property values decrease when open space areas are in disrepair, unsafe, and unclean. The United States Department of the Interior, National Park Services, in a publication of June 1984, concluded that, "An investment in parks and recreation helps reduce pollution and noise, makes communities more livable, and increases property values." Additionally, the National Recreation and Park Association, in June 1985, stated, "The recreation value is realized as a rise in the value of land and other property in or near the recreation area, and is of public interest to the taxpayers, who have a stake in a maximum of total assessed value." ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS Zone classifications depends on whether a parcel is improved or unimproved, those properties that are improved receive the greater benefit from the service provided. Zone Cl - All unimproved parcels within the District. There are 81 unimproved parcels. one C2 - All improved parcels within the District. There are 300 improved parcels. The land-use classification for each parcel has been based on the 2011-2012 Los Angeles County Auditor/Controller's Assessment Roll. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY The following table summarizes the different assessment rates for the different zone classifications, and compares the proposed assessment with the last year's assessment. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON ZONE FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 NET ASSESSMENT PARCELS FY 2011-2012 RATE FY 2009-2010 RATE Cl $10,626.39 81 $131.19/parcel $128.62/parcel C2 $131,187.00 300 $437.29/parcel $428.72/parcel Total $141,813.29 381 Cl = Unimproved Lots C2 = Improved Lots PART E PROPERTY OWNERS LIST The list with the names and addresses of each property owner of each lot or parcel within the District Boundaries as shown on the last equalized Property Tax Roll of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles, which by reference is hereby made part of this report. This list is keyed to the Assessor's Parcel Numbers as shown on the Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the Clerk of the City of West Covina. March 11, 2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 PART F ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM The boundaries of the District are within the boundaries of the City of West Covina. A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District, boundaries of any zone within the Assessment District and the lines and dimension of each lot or parcel of land within the District is on file in the Office of the City Engineer and incorporated herein by reference. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Assessment District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Assessor of the County of Los Angeles and are, by reference, made part of this report. March 11, 2011 Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 ENGINEER'S REPORT CITY OF WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report directed by the City Council. The undersigned certifies that he or she is a professional Engineer, registered in the State of California. Dated: Shannon A. Yauchzee, P. E. Public Works Director/City Engineer 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed in the Office of the City Clerk on the day of ,20l1. City Clerk, City of West Covina County of Los Angeles, California I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, on the day of , 2011. City Clerk, City of West Covina County of Los Angeles, California I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Assessment Roll was filed with the County Auditor of the County of Los Angeles, on day of , 2011. City Clerk, City of West Covina County of Los Angeles, California ATTACHMENT "D-1" WEST COVINA MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 10 YEAR FISCAL PROJECTION - RECOMMENDED PERCENT INCREASE 10.00% 2.00% 2.00°/o 2.000/0 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.000/c 2.00% FISCAL YEAR 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 ASSE55. INCOME $ 139,033 $ 141,814 $ 144,650 $ 147,543 $ 150,494 $ 153,504 $156,574 $159,705 $ 162,900 $ 166,158 INTEREST $ 1,500 $ 1,60 1,516 $ 1,439 $ 1,375 $ 1,324 $ 1,288 $ 1,267 $ 1,261 $ 1,272 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 243,583 $ 233,869 $ 225,630 $ 218,658 $ 213,005 $ 208,729 $ 205,886 $ 204,537 $ 204,741 $ 206,562 TOTAL FUNDING 384,116 377,288 $ 371,796 $ 367,639 $ 364,874 $ 363,557 $363,748 $365,509 $ 368,902 $ 373,991 MAINTENANCE $ 146,672 $ 148,083 $ 149,564 $ 151,059 $ 152,570 $ 154,096 $ 155,637 $ 157,193 $ 158,765 $ 160,353 TRANSFER OUT 3,575 $ 3,575 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 3,575 $ 3,576 TOTAL COST $ 150,247 $ 151,658 $ 153,139 $ 154,634 $ 156,145 $ 157,671 $159,212 $160,768 $ 162,340 $ 163,929 BALANCE $ 233,869 $ 225,630 218,658 $ 213,005- $ 208,729 $ 205,886 $204,537 $204,741 206,562 $ 210,063 CASH FLOW $ 73,336 $ 74,042 $ 74,782 $ 75,530 $ 76,285 $ 77,048 $ 77,818 $ 78,597 $ 79,383 $ 80,176 OVER/UNDER $ 160,533 $ 151,569 143,876 137,475 132,444 $ 128,838 12,718 $ 126 145 127480 129,866 DEVELOPED LOT $ 428.72 $ 437.29 $ 446.04 $ 454.96 $ 464.06 $ 473.34 $ 482.81 $ 492.46 $ 502.31 $ 512.36 UNDEVELOPED LOT $ 128.62 $ 131.19 $ 133.81 $ 136.49 $ 139.22 $ 142.00 $ 144.84 $ 147.74 $ 150.69 $ 153.71 ASSUMPTIONS: A). Interest is 3% of the previous year ending balance B). 1% increase in Maintenance cost due to inflation C). Remaining landscaped open space areas turned over to City in future years. D). There are 300 developed lot and 81 undeveloped lots. F). Previously approved maximum highest rate, $644 DEFINITION: Amount needed to assure that the district operates in a net positive cash flow position CASH FLOW: throughout the year to account for the fact that the revenues from the levy of the assessment is collected twice a year on the property tax bills. OVER / UNDER: Amount over Or under the desired Cash Flow amount. PRIOR YEAR BALANCE: Funds available at the end of the previous fiscal year. ATTACHMENT "D-2" WEST COVINA MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 10 YEAR FISCAL PROJECTION PERCENT INCREASE 10.00% 0.000/0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°/o 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% FISCAL YEAR 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 ASSESS. INCOME $ 139,033 $ 139,033 $ 139,033 $ 139,033 $ 139,033 $ 139,033 $139,033 $139,033 $ 139,033 $ 139,033 INTEREST 1,500 $ 1,605 $ 1,488 $ 1,355 S 1,205 $ 1,038 $ 854 $ 653 $ 435 t 198 PRIOR YEAR BALANCE $ 243,583 $ 233,869 $ 222,850 $ 210,232 $ 195,985 S 180,078 $ 162,478 $ 143,154 $ 122,072 5 99,200 TOTAL FUNDING $ 384,116 $ 374,508 $ 363,371 $ 350,620 $ 336,223 $ 320,149 $302,366 $282,841 $ 261,540 $ 238,432 MAINTENANCE $ 146,672 $ 148,083 $ 149,564 $ 151,059 $ 152,570 $ 154,096 $ 155,637 $ 157,193 $ 158,765 $ 160,353 TRANSFER OUT $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575. 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,575 $ 3,576 TOTAL COST $ 150,247 $ 151,658 $ 153,139 $ 154,634 $ 156,145 $ 157,671 $159,212 $160,768 $ 162,340 $ 163,929 BALANCE $ 233,869 $ 222,850 $ 210,232 $ 195,985 $ 180,078 162,478 $143,154 $122,072 $ 991200 $ 74,503 CASH FLOW $ 73,336 $ 74,042 74,782 $ 75,530 $ 76,285 $ 77,048 5 77,818 $ 78,597 $ 79,383 $ 80,176 OVER/UNDER 160,533 $ 148,808 135,45Q 120,456 $ 103,793 $ 85,430 $ 65,336 43,476 $ 19,818 (5,673) DEVELOPED LOT $ 428.72 $ 428.72 $ 428.72 $ 428.72 $ 428.72 $ 428.72 $ 428.72 $ 428.72 $ 428,72 $ 428,72 UNDEVELOPED LOT $ 128.62 $ 128.62 $ 128.62 $ 128.62 $ 128.62 $ 128.62 $ 128.62 $ 128.62 $ 128.62 $ 128.62 ASSUMPTIONS: A). Interest is 3% of the previous year ending balance B). 1% increase in Maintenance cost due to inflation C). Remaining landscaped open space areas turned over to City in future years. D). There are 300 developed lot and 81 undeveloped lots. F), Previously approved maximum highest rate, $644 DEFINITION: Amount needed to assure that the district operates in a net positive cash flow position CASH FLOW: throughout the year to account for the fact that the revenues from the levy of the assessment is collected twice a year on the property tax bills. OVER / UNDER: Amount over or under the desired Cash Flow amount. PRIOR YEAR BALANCE: Funds available at the end of the previous fiscal year. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. ATTACHMENT "E" Utilities Admin. & Overhead Service Contracts 43% Personnel Services 31% ATTACHMENT "F" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE CERTIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 7, 2011 FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 COMMENCING IN FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 TO FUND THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN LANDSCAPING AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT WEST COVINA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, did in Resolution No. 2010-11 adopted March 1, 2011, pursuant to the provisions of Proposition 218 and the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972," of the State of California, require its State certified registered professional engineer to make and file with the City Clerk of the City Council a report in writing, relating to assessments to fund the operation and maintenance of certain landscaping and appurtenant facilities that exist in the area of West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 7; and WHEREAS, the West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 is exempt from the ballot requirements of Proposition 218 providing the assessments do not increase pursuant to Article XIII D, § 3(b) (property owner consent to initial formation); and WHEREAS, on 5th day of April 2011, the State certified registered professional engineer filed in the Office of the City Clerk of said City, the report in writing responsive to the requirements of said Resolution No. 2010-1 ; and WHEREAS, said City Clerk has presented the said report to the City Council of said City and said Council has considered said report; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina, Califonii does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION I. That the report of the State certified registered professional engineer of the City of West Covina, California, dated March 11, 2011, which was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of West Covina, California, on the 5 th day of April 2011, be and the same is hereby preliminarily approved subject to modification at the Protest Hearing. SECTION 2. A) By the adoption of this resolution and preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report, the City Council declares its intention to levy and collect West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 assessments in the amounts set out in the Engineer's Report to fund operation and maintenance of certain landscaping and appurtenant facilities that exist in the area of West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 7, commencing with Fiscal Year 2011-2012. B) West Covina Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 is generally located in the easterly part of the City of West Covina on the north-facing slopes of the San Jose Hills. C) The existing and proposed improvements are generally described as to landscaping and irrigation in public open space areas within the boundaries of the district. D) Reference is made to the Engineer's Report, on file with the City Clerk, for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district, any zones therein, and the proposed assessments. E) The improvements and assessments shall be done under Proposition 218 and the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, as amended. ZARESOLUTION - 2011 \MD 7 ER Approval 201 I-2012.doc F) The assessments shall be collected on the property tax bill with and subject to the same procedures and penalties for delinquency as general county property taxes. SECTION 3. Public Hearing: That a Public Hearing is set for Tuesday, June 7, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 1444 West Garvey Avenue in the City of West Covina, to take the testimony on the issue of whether or not the assessments should be approved. SECTION 4. Publication: The City Clerk shall publish this resolution at least ten days before the hearing as required by Government Code § 54954.6 (display ad). SECTION 5. The City Council finds that the levy and collection of these assessments is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under § 15273 of the Guidelines, as none of the proceeds will be used for capital expenses, but will be used instead for operation and maintenance. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolutio APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5 111 day of April 201 Mayor Steve Herfert ATTESTED: City Clerk Laurie Carrico I LAURIE CARRICO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5 th day of April 2011, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk Laurie Carrico APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Arnold Alvarez-Glasman ZARESOLUTION - 201 RIAD 7 ER Approval 201 I -2012.doc Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc O R D I N A N C E N O. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 26 (ZONING) OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO TEMPORARY SIGNS WHEREAS, on June 9, 2009, the Planning Commission initiated a code amendment related to temporary signs and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held study sessions on the 13th day of October, 2009, the 11th day of May, 2010, and the 13th day of July, 2010, to discuss potential revisions to the code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving required notice, did on the 9th day of November, 2010, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-5393 recommending to the City Council approval of Code Amendment No. 09-02; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered evidence presented by the Planning Commission, Planning Department, and other interested parties at a duly advertised public hearing on the 5th day of April, 2011; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Council and in its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. The Municipal Code currently contains standards for temporary signs. 2. Revision of the City’s temporary sign regulations ensures and protects the economic benefits derived by commercial uses. 3. Revision of the City’s temporary sign ordinance are reasonable, prudent, and will protect the public health, safety and welfare as well as serve the best interests of the public. 3. The proposed action is considered to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proposed action consists of a code amendment, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of West Covina does ordain as follows: SECTION NO. 1: The City Council finds that this ordinance is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This section exempts an activity that is covered by the general rule that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment such as on-site placement of temporary signs. SECTION NO. 2: Based on the evidence presented and the findings set forth, the City Council of the City of West Covina approves Code Amendment No. 09-02 to amend Chapter 26, Article III (Definitions and Temporary Sign regulations) of the West Covina Municipal Code to read as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION NO. 3: This ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to be severable. Should any section of this ordinance be declared by the courts to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole, or any portion thereof other than the section so declared to be unconstitutional or invalid SECTION NO. 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and it shall be published as required by law. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc PASSED AND APPROVED on this 5th day of April, 2011. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF WEST COVINA ) I, Laurie Carrico, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. ______ was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 5th day of April, 2011. That, thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 5th day of April, 2011. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc EXHIBIT A DIVISION 2. DEFINITIONS Sec. 26-310. Applicability. The following definitions shall apply to terms as used in this article. Sec. 26-310.01. Definitions. A-frame sign A-frame sign. “A-frame sign” shall mean a temporary free-standing sign, usually hinged at the top, or attached in a similar fashion, and widening at the bottom to form a shape similar to the letter “A”. “A-frame spinning sign” shall mean a temporary free-standing sign with a base made of steel that is aerodynamically designed to start rotating with wind. Sec. 26-310.02. Advertising sign. Advertising sign. “Advertising sign” shall mean a sign that identifies one or more uses, products, or a service obtainable on the premises through the use of words, letters, symbols, or combinations thereof. Air dancer balloons. “Air dancer balloons” shall mean a sign that is an inflatable (tubular) balloon simulating a waving man that requires an air blower. Sec. 26-310.03. Awning sign. Awning sign. “Awning sign” shall mean a non-electric sign printed on, painted on, or attached to a cloth awning. The awning structure itself shall be subject to building setbacks. Awning signs, for the purposes of the regulations of this article, shall be treated as wall signs. Sec. 26-310.04. Balloon display. Balloon display. “Balloon display” shall mean an arrangement of one (1) or more balloons, with or without any message thereon, which are individually less than thirty-six (36) inches in any dimension and inflated with air, helium, or gas that are tethered at a fixed location and are primarily intended to draw attention to that location. Balloon displays shall not include balloons arranged in a manner that cumulatively spell out a word. Sec. 26-310.05. Banner. Banner. “Banner” shall mean a sign made of cloth, heavy duty plastic, or similar lightweight, flexible material (except paper), attached to or suspended from any structure, building, staff, pole, line, framing, or other projection, and used for temporary advertising purposes, not including “flags” as defined in this section. 26-310.2. Sec. 26-310.06. Canopy sign, building. Canopy sign, building. “Building canopy sign” shall mean a sign, placed on a vertical plane, affixed flat against the fascia of a permanent covering that projects from the building (building canopy), and that does not extend above or below the edges of such fascia. As used in this definition, canopy shall not include awnings and other canopy covers made of cloth, metal, and other materials, which are not an integral part of the building. Building canopy signs, for the purposes of the regulations of this article, shall be treated as wall signs. Sec. 26-310.07. Canopy sign, cloth. Canopy sign, cloth. “Cloth canopy sign” shall mean a non-electrical sign printed on, painted on, or attached to a cloth canopy. The canopy structure itself shall be subject to building setbacks. Cloth canopy signs, for the purposes of the regulations of this article, shall be treated as wall signs. Sec. 26-310-08. Commercial sign. Commercial sign. “Commercial sign” shall mean any sign that does not meet the definition of a noncommercial sign, including, but not limited to, signs on commercial sites. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc Detached sign. “Detached sign” shall mean a free-standing sign that is not attached to a building. Detached signs include monument signs, pylon signs, and pole signs. Sec. 26-310.10. Directional sign. Directional sign. “Directional sign” shall mean a sign intended for the purpose of directing pedestrians and/or motorists. Sec. 26-310.11. Double-faced sign. Double faced sign. “Double-faced sign” shall mean a sign with two (2) faces, with each face oriented 180 degrees from the other. Sec. 26-310.12 . Flag. Flag. “Flag” shall mean any fabric or bunting containing distinctive colors, patterns, symbols, or logos of a government agency, political subdivision, corporation, church, or other entity. Sec. 26-310.13. Hand-held sign. Hand-held sign. “Hand-held sign” shall mean a commercial sign held by a person or persons in a manner to attract attention to an area, development, business, or service. Sec. 26-310.14. Hanging sign. Hanging sign. “Hanging sign” shall mean a sign that is attached to, but hangs or projects below the underside of an awning, canopy, arcade, eave, overhang, or other covering that projects outward from the face of a building. Sec. 26-310.15. Height. Height. “Height,” as used in this article, shall mean the vertical distance from the ground (measured from the adjacent street curb elevation) to the top of the highest element of a sign, including any structural element. Where specified, however, height may also mean the vertical dimension of the sign area or sign face. Sec. 26-310-16. Identification sign. Identification sign. “Identification sign” shall mean a sign that portrays, through the use of words, letters, logos, or symbols, the name and/or type of business conducted on the premises, or any product or service obtainable on the premises. Sec. 26-310-17. Information sign. Information sign. “Information sign” shall mean a sign that provides information related to a use, product, event, business, or activity on the premises and that is not displayed for the purpose of advertising products or services. Information signs include signs indicating the location of business facilities (e.g. entrances, walk-up windows, self-service operations), and operational information (e.g. hours of operation, menus, credit card logos, restroom labels). Sec. 26-310.18. Inflatable sign. Inflatable sign. “Inflatable sign” shall mean an inflated balloon, in any shape or in the form of any character or animal, and over thirty-six (36) inches in diameter in any dimension, made of vinyl, fabric, cloth, or other similar, lightweight, flexible material, held up by means of cold air, and primarily intended to draw attention to that location. Sec. 26-310.19. Logo. Logo. “Logo” shall mean a word, letter, symbol, design, or other graphic representation, separate from the sign text that identifies a business, activity, product, or company. A logo is considered a sign or part of a sign. Sec. 26-310.20. Menu board sign. Menu board sign. “Menu board sign” shall mean a sign on the site of a drive-through restaurant, either detached or attached to the building, displaying the type and the price of food and beverages sold in connection with and oriented towards the drive-through lane. Sec. 26-310.21. Monument sign. Monument sign. “Monument sign” shall mean a detached sign with a wide base. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc Sec. 26-310.22. Moving sign. Moving sign. "Moving sign" shall mean a sign that moves or creates an appearance of movement, flashing, blinking, reflecting, revolving, or any other similar sign constructed or maintained to, in any way, simulate motion. Sec. 26-310.23. Nameplate. Nameplate. "Nameplate" shall mean a sign that contains only the name and/or address of the occupants of the building or portion thereof. Sec. 26-310.24. Neon Lighting and sign. Neon Lighting and sign. Neon lighting and sign" shall mean any electric gas tube lighting and any sign containing argon, neon, krypton, helium, or xenon. Sec. 26-310.25. Noncommercial sign. Noncommercial sign. "Noncommercial sign" shall mean a sign not connected with a commercial business or activity. Sec. 26-310.26. On-site sign. On site sign. "On-site sign" shall mean a sign that identifies, informs, or advertises a use, product, activity, event, business message, or service located or provided at the site upon which the sign is located. On-site signs may include noncommercial signs. Sec. 26-310.27. Off-site sign. Off-site sign. "Off-site sign" shall mean a sign that identifies, informs, or advertises a use, product, activity, event, business message, or service not located or provided at the site upon which the sign is located, including, but not limited to, billboards and noncommercial signs. Sec. 26-310-28. Pennant. Pennant. "Pennant” shall mean any lightweight plastic, paper, fabric, or other similar, flexible material, suspended from or attached to a rope, wire, string, or pole, usually in a series, designed to move in the wind. Sec. 26-310.29. Pole sign. Pole Sign. "Pole sign" shall mean a detached sign, other than a monument sign, affixed to the ground by a single support structure. Sec. 26-310.30. Political sign. Political sign. "Political sign" shall be considered as a temporary noncommercial sign for the purposes of this article. Sec. 26-310.31. Portable sign. Portable sign. "Portable sign" shall mean a temporary sign which is not permanently affixed to a building, structure, or on the ground, and is capable of being carried or readily moved from one location to another. This may include, but is not limited to, "A" frame or sandwich signs, or a sign which leans on a stationary object, building, or structure. Portable signs shall not include banners, pennants, flags, inflatable signs, vehicle signs, and hand held signs, which are defined separately. Sec. 26-310.32. Primary frontage. Primary frontage. "Primary frontage" means the side of a building where the main entrance for its pedestrian ingress and egress is located. If more than one main entrance exists, the entrance that most nearly faces or is oriented toward the street of highest classification as portrayed on the current master plan of streets and highways shall be considered the primary frontage. If all streets are of the same classification, the side of the building with the shortest lineal dimension containing a main entrance shall be considered the primary frontage. Sec. 26-310.33. Projecting sign. Projecting sign. "Projecting sign" shall mean a sign that projects from and is supported by a wall or building with the display surface of the sign at or near a ninety (90) degree angle to the building facade. Projecting signs are separate from "hanging signs" that are attached to the underside of a covering that projects from the building. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc Sec. 26-310.34. Promotional sign. Promotional sign. "Promotional sign" shall mean a sign, in addition to permanent signage, placed on a temporary basis and used to promote a special event or product available at the site on which the sign is located. Sec. 26-310.35. Pylon sign. Pylon sign. "Pylon sign" shall mean a detached sign affixed to the ground by two supports. Sec. 26-310.36. Readerboard sign. Readerboard sign. "Readerboard sign" shall mean a sign designed to allow the changing of copy through manual, mechanical, or electrical means. Sec. 26-310.37. Roof sign. Roof sign. "Roof sign" shall mean a sign attached to a building that is characterized by one or more of the following: (a) Sign placed atop, or projects above the top edge of, a roof, mansard roof, canopy, or s similar structure not at a vertical plane; or (b) Sign is placed atop, or projects above the top edge of, a parapet wall, canopy fascia, or a similar structure at or near a vertical plane, or (c) Sign is placed on a tower or similar wall structure that extends above the top of the roof or parapet wall of a building. Sec. 26-310.38. Sign. Sign. "Sign" shall mean a device or structure for visual communication which shall include any announcement, declaration, demonstration, display, illustration, or insignia visible from outside, which is used to identify, inform, or promote the interests of any person, business, or organization. Sec. 26-310.39. Sign area. Sign area. "Sign area" shall mean the entire area within straight lines that form, or closely follow, a continuous perimeter outlining the extremities of the element (including panel, placard, cabinet) upon which the sign is placed. Where no such element exists (for example, individual channel letter signs mounted on a building), sign area shall mean the entire area within straight lines that meet at ninety (90) degree angles and outline each individual character or symbol. Support structure shall not be included in this area unless such support structures are designed in such a manner as to form an integral part of the sign or display. Sec. 26-310.40. Sign face surface. Sign face surface. "Sign face or surface" shall mean the surface of the sign upon, against, or through which the copy is displayed or illustrated on the sign. Sec. 26-310.41. Sign copy. Sign copy. "Sign copy" shall mean the words, letters, logos, or symbols displayed on a sign. Sec. 26-310.42. Sign program. Sign program. "Sign program" shall mean comprehensive design standards and/or sign criteria for particular sites that signs are subject to, in addition to sign regulations contained in this article. Sec. 26-310.43. Single-faced sign. Single-faced sign. "Single-faced sign" shall mean a sign with one (1) face. Sec. 26-310.44. Site. Site. "Site" shall mean one (1) or more parcels of land or portions thereof for which an integrated development plan, such as a precise plan, exists. Sec. 26-310.45. Temporary noncommercial sign. Temporary noncommercial sign. "Temporary noncommercial sign" shall mean a sign, constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard, plywood or other material, with or without frames, which is erected for a limited period of time to convey a noncommercial Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc message, including signs regarding time specific events, such as elections. Temporary noncommercial signs shall include political signs. Sec. 26-310.46. Tenant directory sign. Tenant directory sign. "Tenant directory sign" shall mean a sign listing two (2) or more tenants or occupants of a building, complex, or shopping center. Sec. 26-310.47. Trademark. Trademark. "Trademark" shall mean a word or name which, with a distinctive type or letterstyle, symbols, or logo, is associated with a business or organization. Sec. 26-310.48. Vehicle sign. Vehicle sign. "Vehicle sign" shall mean a sign permanently or temporarily attached or placed on a vehicle or trailer, as defined by the California Vehicle Code. Sec. 26-310.49. Wall sign. Wall sign. "Wall sign" shall mean a sign, affixed flat against a building wall at a vertical plane that does not project above top edge of a parapet wall, and that does not extend above or below the edges of the building wall fascia. Building canopy signs, cloth canopy signs, and awning signs shall, for the purposes of this article, be treated as wall signs. Wind blades or wind flags. “Wind blades or wind flags” shall mean a polyester knit fabric attached to a pole that is fixed to the ground. Sec. 26-310.50. Window sign. Window sign. "Window sign" shall mean a sign that is applied or attached to a window or located within two and one-half (2.5) feet of the inside of a window. Secs. 26-310.01 – 26-310.50. Reserved. DIVISION 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 26-311. Exempt signs. The following signs shall be exempt from the provisions of this article: (a) Street number signs up to three (3) square feet in size. (b) Interior signs located more than two and one-half (2.5) feet from the inside of a window of an enclosed building. (c) City or other public entity signs located on its own property and/or the public right-of- way, including banners permitted by section 26-313(b). (d) Service station copy applied to fuel pumps or dispensers such as fuel identification, station logo, and other signage required by state and federal law. (e) Traffic control signs installed per the standards of the California Vehicle Code, or directional signs serving the same purpose provided installed or authorized by a governmental agency. (f) Construction warning signs. Sec. 26-312. Prohibited signs. The following signs are prohibited: (a) Moving signs, visible from a public parking area or street, except for electronic reader boards permitted by sign exception review (SER) under section 26-359, barber poles permitted by SER that rotate at a speed not to exceed eight (8) revolutions per minute, and tethered balloons permitted by temporary use permit (TUP) under section 26-273 and section 26-274. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc (b) Hand-held signs located in the public right-of-way and/on public property as defined by section 26-310. (bc) Painted signs, except as permitted on windows under section 26-352, and on construction barricades by section 26-352(a). (cd) Vehicle signs, except as permitted by section 26-374(h) or where the vehicle meets the following criteria: (1) The vehicle is used in conjunction with the business to which the advertising on the vehicle pertains, e.g. regular use for delivery of business products or obtaining supplies. (2) The vehicle sign is permanently or magnetically attached to or painted on a vehicle that is used in conjunction with the business that it identifies or advertises. (3) The vehicle sign is not attached in a manner to render the vehicle, or a door, window, hood, trunk, or tailgate of that vehicle, unmovable or unusable, or to violate the California Vehicle Code. (4) The vehicle sign is not attached in a manner to render it unsafe or in danger of detaching. (de) Off-site commercial signs. (ef) Signs located on public property or in the public right-of-way, except as allowed by section 26-311(c), section 26-313, and section 26-314, or by approval of an encroachment permit by the city council. Public property includes, but is not limited to: public streets, alleys, medians, sidewalks, rights-of-way, or easements. This restriction shall not apply to city or public entity signs on its own property pursuant to section 26-311(c), or construction warning signs permitted by an encroachment permit. Furthermore, the following shall apply: (1) No sign shall be affixed to private improvements in the public right-of-way, including, but not limited to utility poles, light standards, telephone poles, telephone equipment boxes, cross-arms, traffic control devices, trees, fences, or poles supporting fences. (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, no sign shall prevent or interfere with free ingress to or egress from any door, window or fire escape, or shall be located or maintained in such a place or in such a manner as to constitute an immediate hazard to the safety of or block the path of travel of pedestrians or vehicular traffic. The determination of the city engineer or authorized representative as to whether a sign constitutes such a hazard shall be conclusive. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc Secs. 26-362 – 26-369. Reserved. Sec. 26-362. Flag Poles Type of Sign Maximum Number Maximum Sign Area Maximum Sign Height Permit Req. Additional Requirements (a) Flag poles and Flags Maximum of three (3) flags per site. Maximum vertical dimension of eight (8) feet per face. Maximum horizontal dimension of twelve (12) feet. 50 feet. SAR 1. Permitted flags are those of a government, government agency, public institution, nonprofit agency, or similar entity, or a corporate business logo. Commercial messages, other than a corporate business logo, shall not be permitted. 2. Torn, faded, sagging, or detached flags shall be repaired or replaced. Secs. 26-363 – 26-369. Reserved. Sec. 26-371. Promotional signs-Generally. (a) Promotional signs are permitted only for enclosed tenant spaces normally permitted exterior signage and shall not be used as a use’s main signage in-lieu of a permanent sign. (b) No promotional sign shall obstruct visibility for vehicles and pedestrians, and shall not encroach upon or overhang a public right-of-way or adjacent property. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc Sec. 26-372. – Same – Not Associated with a promotional Event. (a) Banners One (1) per business. One (1) s.f. of sign area per one (1) foot of building frontage (up to 100 square feet maximum). (Single-face only). Below eaveline. SEP 1. The banner permit shall include the dates proposed by the applicant for scheduled banner use. 1. Banners are allowed for a maximum of 90 days per calendar year. 2. A banner can be displayed a maximum of 30 days at a time. 1 3. Banners shall be maintained in good condition. 2 4. Torn, faded, sagging, or detached banners shall be repaired or replaced. 3 5. Banner colors shall be coordinated with building colors and/or corporate color. 4 6.Banners shall be mounted flat against a building exterior wall, except for banners (double-face permitted) placed on locations other than wall surfaces, approved in advance by the Planning Director, for a maximum of 30 days, for uses with approved outdoor display and Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc more than 75,000 square feet of lot area. 5. This section shall be effective until June 30, 1998, at which time it shall terminate. b. Wall- mounted Display Frames (in lieu of Window Signs) No maximum. No more than allowable square footage for window signs. Below eaveline. None 1. Mounted flat against building exterior wall within permanent weatherproof display frames. 2. Copy limited to advertise products available on the premises. (c) Flags Maximum of (3) three flags per site. Maximum vertical dimension of eight (8) feet per faces. Maximum horizontal dimension of twelve (12) feet. 50 feet. SAR 1. Permitted flags are those of a government, government agency, public institution, nonprofit agency, or similar entity, or a corporate business logo. Commercial messages, other than a corporate business logo, shall not be permitted. 2. May be attached (flat against building wall) or detached (not within building setbacks of underlying zone; shall not encroach or overhang public right-of-way or adjacent properties). 3. Torn, faded, sagging, or detached flags shall be repaired or replaced. d. Hand- held Signs One (1) per business. Five (5) s.f. per face. None 1. Shall not impede traffic or pedestrian circulation, or obstruct visibility in parking areas, driveways, and on public streets. Allowed only on private property. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc e. Portable (A-Frame) Signs and wind spinning A- Frame signs. One (1) per business. Eight (8) s.f. per face (double-face permitted) Four (4) feet high. SEP 1. The sign permit shall include the dates proposed by the applicant for scheduled portable (A- Frame) or spinner sign use 1. Permitted for a maximum of 30 days per calendar year. 2. Shall not encroach or overhang public right-of-way or adjacent proeprties properties, and shall not block any sidewalk, driveway, or parking area. (f) Pole- mounted Vertical Banners (only for uses with approved outdoor display and more than 75,000 square feet of lot area). Two (2) per light pole. 24 s.f. per face. Maximum 35 feet. Minimum vertical clearance of 14.5 feet above ground level. None. 1. Torn, faded, sagging, or detached banners shall be repaired or replaced. 2. Maximum horizontal dimension of three (3) feet and a maximum of three feet and a maximum vertical dimension of eight (8) feet. 3. Must be attached to parking lot pole. (g) Small Balloons (only for uses with approved outdoor display and more than 75,000 square feet of lot area). No maximum. Individual balloons may not be more than 36 inches in any dimension. Maximum 95 feet above ground level. None. 1. Damaged or deflated balloon displays shall be promptly repaired, replaced or removed from the premises attached to merchandise displays or to building exterior. (h) Pennants (only for uses with approved outdoor display and more than 75,000 square feet of lot area). No maximum. Each pennant shall be no larger than 3 feet by 4 feet per face. None. None. 1. Connected to parking lot light standards. 2. Spaced no closer than 40 feet on center. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc Sec. 26-374. Same- Associated with a major promotional event. Maximum two (2) events per calendar year/total of one (1) or both events may not exceed twenty (20) days. Time Period for Signage allowed as specified in sections 26-609 and 26-609.5. (a) Banners. One (1) per street frontage. One (1) s.f. of sign area per one (1) foot of building frontage up to 60 s.f. on exterior building wall maximum (single-face only), or 50 s.f. per face on other locations (double- face permitted. Below eaveline. TUP 1. Banners shall be maintained in good conditions 2. Torn, faded, sagging, or detached banners shall be repaired or replaced. 3. Banner colors shall be coordinated with building colors and/or corporate colors. 4. Banners shall be mounted flat against building exterior wall or other locations (free- standing wall, detached, roof). Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc (b) Wind Blades (wind flags) At the discretion of the Planning Director when in conjunction with a TUP but shall not exceed one (1) per every 25 feet of arterial street frontage. None. 12 ft. TUP 1. Wind blades shall be maintained in good conditions 2. Torn, faded, sagging, or detached wind blades shall be repaired or replaced. 3. Wind blade colors shall be coordinated with building colors and/or corporate colors. 4. Wind blades shall be affixed to the landscape area in front of the business on private property. (c) Air dancer balloons (wavers) Maximum one (1) per site. None. 20 ft. including blower with an eight (8-12) inch diameter TUP 1. Must be placed on private property only. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc (bd) Banners for uses with a seventy-five (75,000) square foot or larger site with an approved precise plan designating a min. of four thousand (4,000) square feet of area for “outdoor display”. One (1) per street frontage. 300 square feet. 30 feet. TUP per section 26- 609.5 for uses with designated outdoor display areas on approved precise plans. 1. Banners shall be maintained in good condition. 2. Torn, faded, sagging, or detached banners shall be repaired or replaced. 3. Banner colors shall be coordinated with building colors and/or corporate colors. 4. Banners shall be mounted flat against building exterior wall or other locations (free- standing wall, detached, roof). (ce) Pole- mounted Vertical Banners Two (2) per light pole. 24 s.f. per face (double face permitted). Minimum vertical clearance of 14.5 feet above ground level. TUP 1. Maximum horizontal dimension of three (3) feet and a maximum vertical dimension of eight (8) feet. 2. Must be attached to parking lot pole. 3. Torn, faded, sagging, or detached banners shall be repaired or replaced. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc (df) Inflatable (Large) Balloons. One (1) per business Width of subject building (up to a maximum of 40 feet) 30 feet (measured from roof level for roof- mounts. Ground level for ground- mounts) above roof level. TUP 1. Must be spherical or custom shape. 2. May not be helium filled or lighter than air. 3. Roof- mounted or ground- mounted. 4. Damaged or deflated balloon displays shall be promptly repaired, replaced or removed from the premises. (eg) Small Balloons No maximum. Individual balloons may not be more than 36 inches in any dimension. Maximum 35 feet above ground level. TUP 1. Damaged or deflated balloon displays shall be promptly repaired, replaced or removed from the premises. (fh) Window Bonus (building with frontages less than 20 feet). No Maximum 50 percent of window up to 100 s.f. maximum. TUP 1. Inside glass panel. (gi) Window Bonus (building with frontages between 21 to 30 feet). No maximum 45 percent of window up to 125 s.f. TUP 1. Inside glass panel. (hj) Window Bonus (buildings with frontages over 30 feet). No maximum 40 percent up to 150 square feet maximum. TUP 1. Inside glass panel. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.C Meeting\Ordinance.doc (lk) Vehicle Signs (only for uses with approved outdoor display and more than 75,000 square feet of lot area) One (1) per vehicle. Six (6) s.f. per vehicle (single-face only). Mounted directly on vehicle. TUP 1. Individually strung balloons (less than 36 inches in diameter) may be tied to vehicles. (jl) Pennants, Streamers, Searchlights, and Other Attention Attracting Devices Not Listed May be permitted at the discretion of the planning director when in conjunction with a TUP. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10-5393 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-02. RELATED TO TEMPORARY SIGNS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-02 GENERAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: City of West Covina LOCATION: Citywide WHEREAS, on June 9, 2009, the Planning Commission initiated a code amendment related to temporary signs in non-residential zones; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held study sessions on the 13th day of October, 2009, the 11th day of May, 2010,and the 13th day of July, 2010, to discuss potential revisions to the code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 9th day of November, 2010, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Commission and in its behalf reveal the following facts: The code currently has standards for temporary signs, which were last revised in 1999. It is appropriate to review the types and standards of temporary signs allowed given the changing nature of advertising and business practices. The Sign Section of the Municipal Code includes temporary sign standards that specify where a temporary sign may be placed, the length of time the sign may remain, the size standards, and the type of permit needed. It is necessary to review the standards to determine if the current standards are appropriate. The proposed action is considered to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proposed action consists of a code amendment, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina as follows: SECTION NO. 1: Based on the evidence presented and the findings set forth, Code Amendment No. 09-02 is hereby found to be consistent with the West Covina General Plan and the implementation thereof SECTION NO. 2: Based on the evidence presented and the findings set forth, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of West Covina that it approves Code Amendment No. 09-02 to amend Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal Code to read as shown on Exhibit "A." SECTION NO. 3: The Secretary is instructed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the City Council for their attention in the manner as prescribed by law. Z:\Resos\2010 Resos\ 10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9, 2010- Page 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of November, 2010 by the following vote. AYES: Redholtz, Carrico, Stewart, Holtz, Sotelo NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None DATE: November 9, 2010 / 0 /V Robert A. Sotelo, Chairman Planning Commission Jeff I son, Secretary Planning Commission Z:\Resos\2010 Resos\10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9, 2010 - Page 3 Exhibit A DIVISION 2. DEFINITIONS Sec. 26-310. Applicability. The following definitions shall apply to terms as used in this article. Sec. 26-310.01. Definitions Advertising-signi- Advertisement sign. "A-frame sign" shall mean a temporary free-standing sign, usually hinged at the top, or attached in a similar fashion, and widening at the bottom to form a shape similar to the letter "A". "A-frame spinning sign" shall mean a temporary free-standing sign with a base made of steel that is aerodynamically designed to start rotating with wind. 1:1141F-CUM4 Advertising sign. "Advertising sign" shall mean a sign that identifies one or more uses, products, or a service obtainable on the premises through the use of words, letters, symbols, or combinations thereof. Air dancer balloons. "Air dancer balloons" shall mean a sign that is an inflatable (tubular) balloon simulating a waving man that requires an air blower. Sec. 26 310.03. Awning sign. Awning sign. "Awning sign" shall mean a non-electric sign printed on, painted on, or attached to a cloth awning. The awning structure itself shall be subject to building setbacks. Awning signs, for the purposes of the regulations of this article, shall be treated as wall signs. kW-Balloon-dist& Balloon display. "Balloon display" shall mean an arrangement of one (1) or more balloons, with or without any message thereon, which are individually less than thirty-six (36) inches in any dimension and inflated with air, helium, or gas that are tethered at a fixed location and are primarily intended to draw attention to that location. Balloon displays shall not include balloons arranged in a manner that cumulatively spell out a word. See,26-34-U5,-Banner. Banner. "Banner" shall mean a sign made of cloth, heavy duty plastic, or similar lightweight, flexible material (except paper), attached to or suspended from any structure, building, staff, pole, line, framing, or other projection, and used for temporary advertising purposes, not including "flags" as defined in this section, 26 310.2. LIT067-GanopsignTbuilding Canopy sign, building. "Building canopy sign" shall mean a sign, placed on a vertical plane, affixed flat against the fascia of a permanent covering that projects from the building (building canopy), and that does not extend above or below the edges of such fascia. As used in this definition, canopy shall not include awnings and other canopy covers made of cloth, metal, and other materials, which are not an integral part of the building. Building canopy signs, for the purposes of the regulations of this article, shall be treated as wall signs. 3.07. Canou Canopy sign, cloth. "Cloth canopy sign" shall mean a non-electrical sign printed on, painted on, or attached to a cloth canopy. The canopy structure itself shall be subject to building setbacks. Cloth canopy signs, for the purposes of the regulations of this article, shall be treated as wall signs. Z:\Resos\2010 Resos\10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9, 2010 - Page 4 • . II, •• • '1 ; . Commercial sign. "Commercial sign" shall mean any sign that does not meet the definition of a noncommercial sign, including, but not limited to, signs on commercial sites. - • •. III ! • Detached sign. "Detached sign" shall mean a free-standing sign that is not attached to building. Detached signs include monument signs, pylon signs, and pole signs. - • . ; I . !. I • • • : ' • • . Directional sign. "Directional sign" shall mean a sign intended for the purpose of directing pedestrians and/or motorists. . • . . ! . : • • • : • • . Double faced sign. "Double-faced sign" shall mean a sign with two (2) faces, with each face oriented 180 degrees from the other. Sec. 26 310.12 . Flag. Flag. "Flag" shall mean any fabric or bunting containing distinctive colors, patterns, symbols, or logos of a government agency, political subdivision, corporation, church, or other entity. Sec. 26 310.13. Hand held sign. Hand-held sign. "Hand-held sign" shall mean a commercial sign held by a person or persons in a manner to attract attention to an area, development, business, or service. Sec. 26 310.11. Hanging sign. Hanging sign. "Hanging sign" shall mean a sign that is attached to, but hands or projects below the underside of an awning, canopy, arcade, eave, overhang, or other covering that projects outward from the face of a building. Sec. 26 310.15. Height. Height. "Height," as used in this article, shall mean the vertical distance from the ground (measured from the adjacent street curb elevation) to the top of the highest element of a sign, including any structural element. Where specified, however, height may also mean the vertical dimension of the sign area or sign face. . : • • • : ' : • • • . Identification sign. "Identification sign" shall mean a sign that portrays, through the use of words, letters, logos, or symbols, the name and/or type of business conducted on the premises, or any product or service obtainable on the premises. ! . ; •• : • • ; - • . Information sign. "Information sign" shall mean a sign that provides information related to a use, product, event, business, or activity on the premises and that is not displayed for the purpose of advertising products or services. Information signs include signs indicating the location of business facilities (e.g. entrances, walk-up windows, self-service operations), and operational information (e.g. hours of operation, menus, credit card logos, restroom labels). ••. .• • ! ; : • • ; . Inflatable sign. "Inflatable sign" shall mean an inflated balloon, in any shape or in the form of any character or animal, and over thirty-six (36) inches in diameter in any dimension, made of vinyl, fabric, cloth, or other similar, lightweight, flexible material, held up by means of cold air, and primarily intended to draw attention to that location. Z:\Resos\2010 Resos\ 10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9, 2010 - Page 5 Logo. "Logo" shall mean a word, letter, symbol, design, or other graphic representation, separate from the sign text that identifies a business, activity, product, or company. A log is considered a sign or part of a sign. 14,-Menu-bourcl Menu board sign. "Menu board sign" shall mean a sign on the site of a drive-through restaurant, either detached or attached to the building, displaying the type and the price of food and beverages sold in connection with and oriented towards the drive-through lane. AtienumeE Monument sign. "Monument sign" shall mean a detached sign with a wide base. Sec. 26 310.22. Moving sign. Moving sign. "Moving sign" shall mean a sign that moves or creates an appearance of movement, flashing, blinking, reflecting, revolving, or any other similar sign constructed or maintained to, in any way, simulate motion. Nameplate. "Nameplate" shall mean a sign that contains only the name and/or address of the occupants of the building or portion thereof. Neon Lighting and sign. Neon lighting and sign" shall mean any electric gas tube lighting and any sign containing argon, neon, krypton, helium, or xenon. [N oncommerc Noncommercial sign. "Noncommercial sign" shall mean a sign not connected with a commercial business or activity. Sec. 26 310.26. On site sign. On-site sign. "On-site sign" shall mean a sign that identifies, informs, or advertises a use, product, activity, event, business message, or service located or provided at the site upon which the sign is located. On-site signs may include noncommercial signs. Sec. 26 310.27. Off site sign. Off-site sign. "Off-site sign" shall mean a sign that identifies, informs, or advertises a use, product, activity, event, business message, or service not located or provided at the site upon which the sign is located, including, but not limited to, billboards and noncommercial signs. Sec. 26 310 28. Pennant. Pennant. "Pennant" shall mean any lightweight plastic, paper, fabric, or other similar, flexible material, suspended from or attached to a rope, wire, string, or pole, usually in a series, designed to move in the wind. Sec. 26 310.29. Pole sign. Pole Sign. "Pole sign" shall mean a detached sign, other than a monument sign, affixed to the ground by a single support structure. Sec. 26 310.30. Political sign. Political sign. "Political sign" shall be considered as a temporary noncommercial sign for the purposes of this article. Sec. 26 310.31. Portable sign. Portable sign. "Portable sign" shall mean a temporary sign which is not permanently affixed to a building, structure, or on the ground, and is capable of being carried or readily moved from one location to another. This may include, but is not limited to, "A" frame or sandwich signs, or a sign which leans on a stationary object, building, or structure. Z:\Resos\2010 Resos\10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9,2010 - Page 6 Portable signs shall not include banners, pennants, flags, inflatable signs, vehicle signs, and hand held signs, which are defined separately. Sec. 26 310.32. Primary frontage. Primary frontage. "Primary frontage" means the side of a building where the main entrance for its pedestrian ingress and egress is located. If more than one main entrance exists, the entrance that most nearly faces or is oriented toward the street of highest classification as portrayed on the current master plan of streets and highways shall be considered the primary frontage. If all streets are of the same classification, the side of the building with the shortest lineal dimension containing a main entrance shall be considered the primary frontage. Sec. 26 310.33. Projecting sign. Projecting sign. "Projecting sign" shall mean a sign that projects from and is supported by a wall or building with the display surface of the sign at or near a ninety (90) degree angle to the building facade. Projecting signs are separate from "hanging signs" that are attached to the underside of a covering that projects from the building. Promotional sign. "Promotional sign" shall mean a sign, in addition to permanent signage, placed on a temporary basis and used to promote a special event or product available at the site on which the sign is located. Sec. 26 310.35. Pylon sign. Pylon sign. "Pylon sign" shall mean a detached sign affixed to the ground by two supports. . . • Readerboard sign. "Readerboard sign" shall mean a sign designed to allow the changing of copy through manual, mechanical, or electrical means. Sec. 26 310.37. Roof sign. Roof sign. "Roof sign" shall mean a sign attached to a building that is characterized by one or more of the following: (a) Sign placed atop, or projects above the top edge of, a roof, mansard roof, canopy, or s similar structure not at a vertical plane; or (b) Sign is placed atop, or projects above the top edge of, a parapet wall, canopy fascia, or a similar structure at or near a vertical plane, or (c) Sign is placed on a tower or similar wall structure that extends above the top of the roof or parapet wall of a building. Sec. 26 310.38. Sign. Sign. "Sign" shall mean a device or structure for visual communication which shall include any announcement, declaration, demonstration, display, illustration, or insignia visible from outside, which is used to identify, inform, or promote the interests of any person, business, or organization. Sec. 26 310.39. Sign area. Sign area. "Sign area" shall mean the entire area within straight lines that form, or closely follow, a continuous perimeter outlining the extremities of the element (including panel, placard, cabinet) upon which the sign is placed. Where no such element exists (for example, individual channel letter signs mounted on a building), sign area shall mean the entire area within straight lines that meet at ninety (90) degree angles and outline each individual character or symbol. Support structure shall not be included in this area unless such support structures are designed in such a manner as to form an integral part of the sign or display. ZAResos\2010 Resos\ 10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9, 2010 - Page 7 Sign face surface. "Sign face or surface" shall mean the surface of the sign upon, against, or through which the copy is displayed or illustrated on the sign. Sec. 26 310.41. Sign copy. Sign copy. "Sign copy" shall mean the words, letters, logos, or symbols displayed on sign. • . ! .4 . - • • : :1 •• . Sign program. "Sign program" shall mean comprehensive design standards and/or sign criteria for particular sites that signs are subject to, in addition to sign regulations contained in this article. .. • • Single-faced sign. "Single-faced sign" shall mean a sign with one (1) face. Site. "Site" shall mean one (1) or more parcels of land or portions thereof for which an integrated development plan, such as a precise plan, exists. - . Temporary noncommercial sign. "Temporary noncommercial sign" shall mean a sign, constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard, plywood or other material, with or without frames, which is erected for a limited period of time to convey a noncommercial message, including signs regarding time specific events, such as elections. Temporary noncommercial signs shall include political signs. • ••• • IA. . • • • • : • . Tenant directory sign. "Tenant directory sign" shall mean a sign listing two (2) or more tenants or occupants of a building, complex, or shopping center. Trademark. "Trademark" shall mean a word or name which, with a distinctive type or letterstyle, symbols, or logo, is associated with a business or organization. Sec. 26 310.48. Vehicle sign. Vehicle sign. "Vehicle sign" shall mean a sign permanently or temporarily attached or placed on a vehicle or trailer, as defined by the California Vehicle Code. Sec. 26 310.49. Wall sign. Wall sign. "Wall sign" shall mean a sign, affixed flat against a building wall at a vertical plane that does not project above top edge of a parapet wall, and that does not extend above or below the edges of the building wall fascia. Building canopy signs, cloth canopy signs, and awning signs shall, for the purposes of this article, be treated as wall signs Wind blades or wind flags. "Wind blades or wind flags" shall mean a polyester knit fabric attached to a pole that is fixed to the ground. .• • V. •• • • • Window sign. "Window sign" shall mean a sign that is applied or attached to a window or located within two and one-half (2.5) feet of the inside of a window. Secs. 26-310.01 — 26-310.50. Reserved. DIVISION 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS cc. 26-311. Exempt signs. Z:\Resos\2010 Resos\ 10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9, 2010 - Page 8 The following signs shall be exempt from the provisions of this article: (a) Street number signs up to three (3) square feet in size. (b) Interior signs located more than two and one-half (2.5) feet from the inside of window of an enclosed building. (c) City or other public entity signs located on its own property and/or the public right-of-way, including banners permitted by section 26-313(b). (d) Service station copy applied to fuel pumps or dispensers such as fuel identification, station logo, and other signage required by state and federal law. (e) Traffic control signs installed per the standards of the California Vehicle Code, or directional signs serving the same purpose provided installed or authorized by a governmental agency. (f)Construction warning signs. Sec. 26-312. Prohibited signs. The following signs are prohibited: (a) Moving signs, visible from a public parking area or street, except for electronic reader boards permitted by sign exception review (SER) under section 26-359, barber poles permitted by SER that rotate at a speed not to exceed eight (8) revolutions per minute, and tethered balloons permitted by temporary use permit (TUP) under section 26-273 and section 26-274. (b) Hand-held signs located in the public right-of-way and/on public property as defined by section 26-310. (bc) Painted signs, except as permitted on windows under section 26-352, and on construction barricades by section 26-352(a). (es") Vehicle signs, except as permitted by section 26-374(h) or where the vehicle meets the following criteria: (1) The vehicle is used in conjunction with the business to which the advertising on the vehicle pertains, e.g. regular use for delivery of business products or obtaining supplies. (2) The vehicle sign is permanently or magnetically attached to or painted on a vehicle that is used in conjunction with the business that it identifies or advertises. (3) The vehicle sign is not attached in a manner to render the vehicle, or a door, window, hood, trunk, or tailgate of that vehicle, unmovable or unusable, or to violate the California Vehicle Code. (4) The vehicle sign is not attached in a manner to render it unsafe or in danger of detaching. (de) Off-site commercial signs. A Signs located on public property or in the public right-of-way, except as allowed by section 26-311(c), section 26-313, and section 26-314, or by approval of an encroachment permit by the city council. Public property includes, but is not limited to: public streets, alleys, medians, sidewalks, rights-of-way, or easements. This restriction shall not apply to city or public entity signs on its own property pursuant to section 26-311(c), or construction warning signs permitted by an encroachment permit. Furthermore, the following shall apply: ZAResos\2010 Resos\ 10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9, 2010- Page 9 (1) No sign shall be affixed to private improvements in the public right-of-way, including, but not limited to utility poles, light standards, telephone poles, telephone equipment boxes, cross-arms, traffic control devices, trees, fences, or poles supporting fences. (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, no sign shall prevent or interfere with free ingress to or egress from any door, window or fire escape, or shall be located or maintained in such a place or in such a manner as to constitute an in-imediate hazard to the safety of or block the path of travel of pedestrians or vehicular traffic. The determination of the city engineer or authorized representative as to whether a sign constitutes such a hazard shall be conclusive. ; ; I . • • - • : . - • • . Sec. 26-362. Flags Type of Sign Maximum Number Maximum Sign Area Maximum Sign Height Permit Rea, Additional Requirements Maximum Maximum 50 feet. SAR 1. Permitted flags are Flags of three (3) flags per site. vertical dimension of eight (8) feet • er face. Maximum horizontal dimension of twelve (12) feet. those of a government, government agency, public institution, nonprofit agency, or similar entity, or a corporate business logo. Commercial messages, other than a corporate business logo, shall not be permitted. 2. Torn, faded, sagging, or detached flags shall be _repaired or replaced. Secs. 26-363 -- 26-369. Reserved. Sec. 26-371. Promotional signs-Generally. (a) Promotional signs are permitted only for enclosed tenant spaces normally permitted exterior signage and shall not be used as a use's main signage in-lieu of a permanent sign. (b) No promotional sign shall obstruct visibility for vehicles and pedestrians, and shall not encroach upon or overhang a public right-of-way or adjacent property. Sec. 26-372. — Same — Not Associated with a promotional Event. ZAResos\2010 Resos\ 10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporal}, Signs.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9, 2010- Page 10 (a) One (1) One (1) s.f. Below SEP Banners per of sign area eaveline. business, per one (1) foot of building frontage (up to 100 square feet maximum). (Single-face only). 1. The banner permit shall include the dates proposed by the applicant for scheduled banner use. 1. Banners are allowed for a maximum of 90 days per calendar year. 2. A banner can be displayed a maximum of 30 days at a time. 4-3. Banners shall be maintained in good condition. 24. Torn, faded, sagging, or detached banners shall be repaired or replaced. 3- 5. Banner colors shall be coordinated with building colors and/or corporate color. 4 6.Banners shall be mounted flat against a building exterior wall, except for banners (double-face permitted) placed on locations other than wall surfaces, approved in advance by the Planning Director, for a maximum of 30 days, for uses with approved outdoor display and Z:\Resos\2010 Resos\10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doe Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9, 2010- Page 11 more than 75,000 square feet of lot area. 5. This section be shall effective June 30, until 1998, at which time it shall terminate. b. Wall Ne maximum. No than more Below veline. None 1. Mounted flat mountedDisplay allowable square building against exterior wall Frames (in lieu of footage for• window signs. within permanent Window Signs) weatherproof display frames. 2. Copy limited to advertise products available the on premises. (c) Flags Maximum of (3) three flags per Maximum vertical 50 feet. SAR • 1. Permitted flags are those of a dimension of eight-(8)-feet faces. per site, government, ge-icerniatent Maximum horizontal dimension of agency, public institution, nonprofit agency, or similar entity, or a corporate twelve (12) feet, business logo. Commercial messages, other than a corporate business logo, shall-net-be permitted; 2. May be attached (flat against building detached wall) or (not within building setbacks of underlying zone; shall not encroach or overhang public right of way or adjacent properties). 3. Torn, faded, sagging, or detached flags be shall repaired or replaced. ZAResos\2010 Resos\10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9, 2010 - Page 12 d. Hand- held Signs One (1) per business, Five (5) s.fl per face. None 1. Shall not impede traffic or pedestrian circulation, or obstruct visibility in parking areas, driveways, and on public streets. Allowed only on rivate ro er . e. Portable (A-Frame) Signs and wind spinning A-Frame signs, One (1) per business. Eight (8) s.f. per face (double-face permitted) Four (4) feet high. SEP 1. The sign permit shall include the dates proposed by the applicant for scheduled portable (A-Frame) or spinner sign use 1. Permitted for a maximum of 30 days per calendar year. 2. Shall not encroach or overhang public right-of-way or adjacent pr-eepi4ies properties, and shall not block any sidewalk, driveway, or parking area. (f) Pole- mounted Vertical Banners (only for uses with approved outdoor display and more than 75,000 square feet of lot area). Two (2) per light pole. 24 s.f. per face. Maximum 35 feet. Minimum vertical clearance of 14.5 feet above ground level. None. 1. Tom, faded, sagging, or detached banners shall be repaired or replaced. 2. Maximum horizontal dimension of three (3) feet and a maximum of three feet and a maximum vertical dimension of eight (8) feet. 3. Must be attached to parking lot pole. (g) Small Balloons (only for uses with approved outdoor display and more than 75,000 square feet of lot area). No maximum. Individual balloons may not be more than 36 inches in any dimension. Maximum 95 feet above ground level. None. 1. Damaged or deflated balloon displays shall be promptly repaired, replaced or removed from the premises attached to merchandise displays or to building exterior. Z:\Resos\2010 Resos\ 10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9, 2010 - Page 13 No Each pennant None. None. maximum. shall be no larger than 3 feet by 4 feet per face. 1. Connected to parking lot light standards. 2. Spaced no closer than 40 feet on center. Sec. 26-374. Same- Associated with a major promotional event. Maximum two (2) events per calendar year/total of one (1) or both events may not exceed twenty (20) days. (a) Banners. One (1) per One (1) s.f. Below street of sign area eaveline. frontage. per one (1) foot of building frontage up to 60 s.f. on exterior building wall maximum (single-face only), or 50 s.f. per face on other locations (double- face permitted. TUP 1. Banners shall be maintained in good conditions 2. Torn, faded, sagging, or detached banners shall be repaired or replaced. 3. Banner colors shall be coordinated with building colors and/or corporate colors. 4. Banners shall be mounted flat against building exterior wall or other locations (free- standing wall, detached, ZAResos\2010 Resos\ 1 0-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9, 2010 - Page 14 (b) Wind At the None. 12 ft. TUP 1. Wind Blades discretion of blades shall (wind flags) the Planning be maintained - Director when in in good conjunction conditions with a TUP 2. Torn but shall not exceed one faded (1) per every sagging, or 25 feet of detached arterial street wind blades frontage. shall be repaired or replaced. 3. Wind blade colors shall be coordinated with building colors and/or corporate colors. 4. Wind blades shall be affixed to the landscape area in front of the business on private property. (c) Air Maximum None. 20 ft. TUP 1. Must be dancer one (1) per including placed on balloons site. blower private (wavers) with an property eight (8-12) only. inch diameter Z:\Resos\2010 Resos\ 10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9.2010 - Page 15 One (1) per street frontage. TUP per section 26- 609.5 for uses with designated outdoor display areas on approved precise plans. 1. Banners shall be maintained in good condition. 2. Torn, faded, sagging, or detached banners shall be repaired or replaced. 300 square 30 feet. feet. 3. Banner colors shall be coordinated with building colors and/or corporate colors. 4. Banners shall be mounted flat against building exterior wall or other locations (free- standing wall, detached, Z:\Resos\2010 Resos\10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9, 2010 - Page 16 fee) Pole- Two (2) per 24 s.f. per Minimum TUP 1. Maximum mounted light pole. face (double vertical horizontal Vertical face clearance of dimension of Banners permitted). 14.5 feet above ground level, three (3) feet and a maximum vertical dimension of eight (8) feet. 2. Must be attached to parking lot pole. 3. Torn, faded, sagging, or detached banners shall be repaired or replaced. OD One (1) per Width of 30 feet TUP 1. Must be Inflatable business subject (measured spherical or (Large) building (up from roof custom Balloons, to a maximum of 40 feet) level for roof- mounts. Ground level for ground- mounts) above roof level. shape. 2. May not be helium filled or lighter than air. 3. Roof-mounted or ground-mounted. 4. Damaged or deflated balloon displays shall be promptly repaired, replaced or removed from the premises. Z:\Resos\2010 Resos\10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 Code Amendment No. 09-02 November 9, 2010 - Page 17 (eg) Small Balloons No maximum. Individual balloons may not be more than 36 inches in any dimension. Maximum 35 feet above ground level, TUP 1. Damaged or deflated balloon displays shall be promptly repaired, replaced or removed from the premises. (h) Window Bonus (building with frontages less than 20 feet). No Maximum 50 percent of window up to 100 s.f. maximum. TUP 1. Inside glass panel. (gi) Window Bonus (building with frontages between 21 to 30 feet). No maximum 45 percent of window up to 125 si. TUP 1. Inside glass panel. (hj) Window Bonus (buildings with frontages over 30 feet). No maximum 40 percent up to 150 square feet maximum. TUP 1. Inside glass panel. (1k) Vehicle Signs (only for uses with approved outdoor display and more than 75,000 square feet of lot area) One (1) per vehicle, Six (6) s.f. per vehicle (single-face only). Mounted directly on vehicle, TUP 1. Individually strung balloons (less than 36 inches in diameter) may be tied to vehicles. OD Pennants, Streamers, Searchlights, and Other Attention Attracting Devices Not Listed May be permitted at the discretion of the planning director when in conjunction with a TUP. ZAResos\2010 Resos\10-5393 CA 09-02 Temporary Signs.doc AGENDA ITEM NO. C-2 DATE November 9, 2010 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-02 GENERAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: City of West Covina LOCATION: Citywide I. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION On June 9, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 09-5332 initiating Code Amendment No. 09-02 related to temporary signs. The initiation of this code amendment requires that a proposed code amendment be presented to the Planning Commission.. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation and the code amendment will be presented to the City Council. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 09-02 to the City Council. III. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed code amendment is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines in that it consists of a code amendment, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. IV. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission held three study sessions to review the existing Code standards and consider potential revisions to the Code. The Commission held study sessions on October 13, 2009, May 11, 2010 and July 13, 2010. At those study sessions, staff provided tables providing information on existing code standards, options to change the standard, and a staff recommendation. V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS The City has experienced a proliferation of temporary signs within the City's commercial zones. The Community Enhancement has received complaints regarding the appearance of the commercial districts. In addition, the Chamber of Commerce also raised concerns regarding the abundance of temporary signs and had requested greater enforcement efforts. Staff, based on the Planning Commission's direction, has endeavored to draft a code amendment that attempts to address the proliferation of temporary signs while allowing the business community to promote their business. As such, during the meeting of March 24, 2009, Commissioner Stewart requested that a study session be held to discuss whether the current standards for temporary signs and banners were appropriate for the City. Staff met with the Chamber of Commerce on December 8, 2009 to follow up on the input provided during the first study session. The Greater West Covina Business Association (GWC) was also invited to meet with staff regarding changes to the code. Mr. Gary ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp SignARC Meeting 1109_10 \Staff Report.doc Code Amendment No. 09-02 (Temporary Signs November 9, 2010 - Page 2 Larson, Chief Executive Officer indicated that they would be fine with any changes made by the City in regards to temporary signs. As such, a formal meeting did not take place. In addition, the Chamber of Commerce and the GWC have been notified each time that the Planning Commission held a study session, as well as for this public hearing, to allow these organizations to provide input. Based on the input from the Planning Commission and Community Enhancement, Planning staff has completed a draft code amendment (Attachment 1). The following is a list of changes proposed in the draft amendment. 1. Establishing Definitions for "wind spinning A-frame signs, wind blades or wind flags and air dance balloons (wavers)". "A-frame spinning sign" shall mean a temporary free-standing sign with a base made of steel that is aerodynamically designed to start rotating with wind. "Air dancer balloons" shall mean a sign that is an inflatable (tubular) balloon simulating a waving man that requires an air blower. "Wind blades or wind flags" shall mean polyester knit fabric attached to a pole that is fixed to the ground. 2. A-frame spinning signs are allowed in the same manner that an A-frame sign is allowed under the current sign regulations. However, businesses would be allowed only one the signs at a time. 3. The proposed changes include the period of time a banner would be allowed to be displayed to a maximum of 90 days per calendar year. An individual banner can be displayed a maximum of 30 days at a time. The current code has no time limits for banners to be displayed. 4. The code amendment proposes to remove a statement included in the sign code pertaining to banners that is no longer applicable that states "This section shall be effective until June 30, 1998, at which time it shall terminate". 5. Flags would be removed from the section of the code pertaining to temporary signs and be relocated to another section of the code. Flagpoles are a permanent structure. The code allows flag poles up to a height of 50 feet. 6. The Code currently allows hand-held signs. However, the code is ambiguous whether this type of signs is intended to be allowed in the public right-of-way. Due to legal concerns, a sentence will be added to the requirements stating that hand-held sign are allowing in private property only. 7. Modify the code to allow wind blade signs or wind flags and air dancer balloons. The proposed changes include provisions to allow these types of signs in conjunction with a temporary use permit. 8. The code amendment proposes to eliminate the allowance of wall mounted display frames (in lieu of window signs). In addition to the changes above, staff is seeking input from the Planning Commission to eliminate a code provision that currently may allow flags, including the American flag, to be attached flat against a building wall. Staff would like to eliminate this provision to ensure that the American flag is displayed in an appropriate manner. Conclusion The proposed changes include revisions that would be reflective of today's business climate. The proposed code amendment is an effort to balance the business community needs while protecting the general health, safety, and welfare of the City as well as the City's aesthetics. ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\P.0 Meeting 1109_10\StaffReport.doc Code Amendment No. 09-02 ( ,emporary Signs November 9, 2010 - Page 3 VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 09-02 to the City Council. C—C, I Fabiola Wong Senior Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED: f Jeff A.1r,f1, AICP Act ng /61anning Director Attachments: Attachment 1 – Code Amendment Resolution Attachment 2– Memorandum to Planning Commission, 3rd Study Session, July 13, 2010 Attachment 3 – Table – Surveys of Cities, 2nd Study Session, July 13, 2010 Attachment 4– Table – Summary of Signs Discussion, 2nd Study Session, July 13, 2010 Attachment 5 – Memorandum to Planning Commission, 2' Study Session, May 11, 2010 Attachment 6 – Table, 2nd Study Session, May 11, 2010 Attachment 7 – Memorandum to Planning Commission, 1st Study Session, October 13, 2009 ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\P.0 Meeting 11_09_10\Staff Report.doc ADOPTED 12/14/10 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 11.9.10.doc MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF WEST COVINA Tuesday, November 9, 2010 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Sotelo in the West Covina Council Chambers. Commissioner Holtz led the Pledge of Allegiance and the Commission observed a moment of silence. ROLL CALL Present: Sotelo, Carrico, Redholtz, Stewart, Holtz Absent: None City Staff Present: Anderson, Wong, Garcia and de Zara APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting, October 26, 2010 – The minutes were approved as submitted. A. OTHER MATTERS OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None B. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. FORTHCOMING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE Receive and file. Acting Planning Director Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During his presentation, Mr. Anderson informed the Commission that there would not be a meeting on November 23, 2010 due to a lack of business. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Carrico, to approve the items listed. Motion carried 5-0. C. PUBLIC HEARING (1) CODE AMENDMENT NO. 10-02 GENERAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: City of West Covina LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: The proposed code amendment consists of certain amendments to Chapter 26 (Planning) of the West Covina Municipal Code related to auto repair in residential zones. Chairman Sotelo opened the public hearing. Acting Planning Director Jeff Anderson presented the staff report and informed the Commission that this code amendment had been initiated by the City Council and referred to the Planning Commission. During the presentation, Mr. Anderson showed a power point presentation regarding the areas that had been studied and addressed. Among the matters addressed by Mr. Anderson were the definition of an “auto broker”, storage of inoperable vehicles behind a six-foot wall or fence, defining that a fabric car cover doesn’t meet the screening requirement for inoperable vehicles, prohibiting vehicle repairs in driveways, revising the number of vehicles that can be repaired when not registered at a property, modification of the time period allowed for incidental vehicle repairs, definition of repairs allowed in residential zones, implementation of a citation section for Community Enhancement, and defining vehicle repairs allowed in multiple family residential zones. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 – November 9, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 11.9.10.doc Commissioner Redholtz said that Commissioner Holtz had asked if the painting of automobiles would prohibited by the code amendment in R-1, Single Family Residential zones. He also asked why the proposed code amendment didn’t specifically prohibit painting of automobiles in the R-1 (Single Family Zone.) Commissioner Redholtz also asked if Community Enhancement would continue to be reactive, rather than proactive, in their code enforcement activities. There was also a discussion by the Commission regarding how Community Enhancement staff would determine the vehicle’s registration and the number of times per year that a vehicle could be repaired at a resident’s home. Commissioner Carrico expressed his concern that residents would not be able to conduct minor repairs, such as changing a tire or charging a dead battery, in their drives to their own vehicles under this code. Chairman Sotelo concurred with Commissioner Carrico and expressed his concern with the ability of residents to properly screen their stored vehicles from view. Chairman Sotelo also said he was concerned that not everyone would have the ability to repair their vehicles within the 72-hour period. Staff said that the code amendment was intended to address chonic violations such as automobile repair businesses being operated in residential zones. Commissioner Holtz said he understood that the proposed code amendment was meant to address chronic violators and said he didn’t believe that a neighbor would report a neighbor who repaired their own vehicle from time to time. Commissioner Redholtz expressed his agreement with Commissioner Holtz’s statement and reminded the Commission that Community Enhancement would be reactive to complaints, rather than proactive. Commissioner Holtz also asked staff to clarify if painting of vehicles would be prohibited in residential zones. PROPONENT: Nancy Adin and Lloyd Johnson spoke in favor of the proposed code amendment. Ms. Adin expressed her support of the code amendment. However, she was also concerned with how Community Enhancement staff would be able to determine the registration of a vehicle being repaired. In addition, Ms. Adin said she was concerned that inoperable vehicles not registered to the resident, and undergoing restoration would be stored in garages. Mr. Johnson also said he was supportive of the code amendment but asked that repairs not be allowed in carports that are located in the front yard because the openess of carports would allow too much visibility of vehicle repairs. OPPONENT: Frederick Sykes spoke in opposition to the proposed code amendment. Mr. Sykes said he was concerned that the code amendment would make vehicle repairs difficult in cases where extended family members live together and own many vehicles. In addition, he said he was concerned that a 72-hour limit would not allow sufficient time for vehicle owners to get parts for their cars and repair them. Mr. Sykes also said that, in cases where people work during the week, they would have to wait until their day off to repair their vehicle. Chairman Sotelo closed the public hearing. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the restoration of a resident’s own vehicle. Staff told the Commission that restoration of vehicles would be allowed in an enclosed garage or in the rear yard that is properly screened and not visible from the street. The Commission also discussed the ability of Community Enhancement to check the registration of a vehicle, and prohibiting inoperable vehicles from being stored in the front of a residence. Commissioner Carrico expressed his concern with the requirement of a six-foot fence or landscaping to screen vehicles in the rear yard. He said that, in many cases vehicles could be screened by fencing or landscaping shorter than six feet. He also expressed his Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 – November 9, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 11.9.10.doc concern that residents, whose vehicles are adequately screened by shorter fencing would still be cited because they lacked six-foot fencing or landscaping. Commissioner Carrico stated his belief that the code amendment, as written, could present problems with enforcement in the future. Chairman Sotelo expressed his concern the proposed amendment did not address determining whether or not the registration of a vehicle is valid and registered to a resident of the property. Chairman Sotelo also said that he was concerned that this code amendment was not strong enough to address the storage of inoperable vehicles, which is the problem they tried to address. Chairman Sotelo and Commissioner Carrico said that, for the reasons they had expressed during the discussion, they would like to continue this matter for further review. Commissioner Stewart said that he was supportive of the code amendment as submitted, since it would help prevent further abuse of the current code addressing automobile repairs in Single Family, R-1 zones. Commissioner Stewart added that his neighbor had restored vehicles in his garage and that he believed restoration of vehicles could take place in garages without bothering the neighbors. Commissioners Holtz and Redholtz concurred with Commissioner Stewart’s statement. Motion by Carrico, seconded by Sotelo, to continue the public hearing to a future meeting and direct staff to revise the draft code amendment. Motion failed 2-3 (Stewart, Redholtz and Holtz opposed.) Motion by Holtz, seconded by Redholtz, to adopt Resolution No. 10-9352, recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 10-02 to the City Council. Motion carried 3-2 (Carrico and Sotelo opposed.) There was a short discussion regarding prohibiting auto repairs in carports. Motion by Holtz to prohibit auto repair in carports located in the front yard. Motion died for lack of a second. (2) CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-02 GENERAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: City of West Covina LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: The proposed code amendment consists of certain amendments to Chapter 26 (Planning) of the West Covina Municipal Code related to temporary signs. Chairman Sotelo opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Fabiola Wong presented the staff report. During her presentation she reviewed the matters discussed by the Commission at a previous study session. In addition, she reviewed the types of signs that would be allowed, the 90-day limit for temporary banners, and allowing hand-held signs on private property only. Ms. Wong added that staff was recommending that the Commission also address the display of the American flag in the code amendment. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the types of improper display of the American flag, including on the side of a building. PROPONENTS: Gary Lawson, representing the Greater West Covina Business Association, and Drexel Smith, President of the West Covina Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor ot the code amendment. Mr. Lawson and Mr. Smith both expressed their support of the new temporary sign regulations and urged the Commission to recommend approval of the code amendment to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 – November 9, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 11.9.10.doc OPPONENTS: No one spoke in opposition to the code amendment. Chairman Sotelo closed the public hearing. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the proposed code amendment. Commissioner Stewart asked staff if anyone had displayed the American flag on the side of building. Staff said they were unaware of any in West Covina but wanted to prevent this situation in the future. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Sotelo, to adopt Resolution No. 10-5393, recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 09-02, as amended. Motion carried 5- 0. D. NON HEARING ITEMS (1) 90-DAY REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-12 CONDITION FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT APPLICANT: Sol de la Noche LOCATION: 1302 Francisquito Avenue, Unit B A 90-day review of conditions allowing live entertainment until 10:00 p.m. on Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday and until midnight on Friday and Saturday. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide comment and direction as appropriate. Planning Associate Ron Garcia presented the staff report. During his presentation, he told the Commission that the police had not received any requests for service during the 90-day review period and no complaints about the restaruant had been received by staff. In addition, Mr. Garcia told the Commission that the applicant had indicated he was satisfied with the hours of operation and was not seeking to increase those hours. Javier Gallardo, applicant, his interpreter, Javier, and Patty Fors, Sunset Garden Apartments Manager, spoke regarding this matter. Mr. Gallardo answered questions by the Commission regarding the hours of operation and the sound system used during the live entertainment. Commissioner Redholtz also asked Mr. Gallardo if there was an age restriction after 8:00 p.m. and if food was served during the entire time the restaurant is open. Mr. Gallardo said, through his interpreter, that food was always available and that the restaurant was always open to everyone. There was also a discussion by the Commission regarding requiring that business hours be posted on the outside of the building. The applicant agreed to post the hours the restaurant is open and notify staff when the posting is completed. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Holtz, to add a condition requiring the hours of operation of the restaurant to be posted and to notify staff when posting the hours is completed. Motion carried 5-0. (2) STUDY SESSION PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC NOTICE POSTING STANDARDS AND MAILINGS Review of current Planning Commission guidelines for posting notices on site and for mailing public notification. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide comment and direction as appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 – November 9, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 11.9.10.doc Acting Planning Director Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During his presentation Mr. Anderson said that the Ralph M. Brown Act required notification of public hearings. He also told the Commission that the City of West Covina had chosen to mail notices to property owners and residents, as well as publish public hearing notices in the local newspaper. He told the Commission that the Planning Commission had also adopted guidelines for posting properties and explained the process and the threshold for which posting is required. Mr. Anderson also explained the costs associated with mailing public hearing notices and publishing them in the newspaper. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the descriptions included in the public hearing notices, the 300-foot public notification radius required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, the uniformity of project descriptions included in the notices, and printing “public hearing notice” on the outside of the envelopes. The Commission also discussed expanding the notification radius from 300 feet to 500 feet and changing the project posting requirements. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to investigate the options and present them to the Commission at a meeting early next year. E. CONTINUATION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Continuation of Item A, Oral Communications F. COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Commissioner Holtz requested that the public hearing notices be provided to Commissioners in their meeting agenda packets. Chairman Sotelo reminded everyone that there would be festivites celebrating Veteran’s Day and a groundbreaking ceremony for the new West Covina Veterans memorial in the Civic Center Courtyard on Thursday, November 11, 2010. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: November 2, 2010 – Code Amendment No. 09-04, Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance, was amended and will be rescheduled. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT: a. Project Status Report G. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Holtz, to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Motion carried 5-0 City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA ITEM NO. D-3 DATE: July 13, 2010 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-02 TEMPORARY SIGNS I. DESCRIPTION On June 9, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 09-5332 initiating Code Amendment No. 09-02 related to temporary signs. The initiation of this code amendment requires that a proposed code amendment be presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation and the code amendment will be presented to the City Council. DISCUSSION On October 13, 2009 the Planning Commission held a study session. During this study session staff discussed the current regulations and the concerns brought up to the City's attention by the Chamber of Commerce. The Planning Commission directed staff to meet with the Chamber of Commerce to discuss their concerns and to report back. In addition, the Commission expressed concerns regarding the proliferation of promotional signage throughout the City. On May 11, 2010 the Planning Commission held another study session. Staff reported on the feedback received at the meeting with the Chamber of Commerce. At this Study Session, the current allowable temporary signs were discussed and whether changes are warranted in the current regulations. In addition, signs currently being used throughout the City that are not addressed in the sign ordinance were discussed. These type of signs included wind blades, wavers, and spinners. During this meeting, the Commission gave staff direction in regards to alternatives to address the proliferation of temporary signage ag well as allowing business owners to adequately promote their businesses. The Planning Commission directed staff to obtain more information regarding the allowance of hand-held signs in the public right-of-way. Staff consulted the City Attorney's office and found that the City has the authority to allow or prohibit hand-held signs in the pubic right-of-way or on public property. Many cities prohibit all signs in the public right-of-way or on public property. Due to freedom of speech rights, the City cannot discriminate on the content of the signs if allowed in the public right-of-way. The unfortunate result is that the City may get a mix of commercial signs and other types of signs such as religious, philosophical or political signs. By allowing seemingly innocent hand-held signs the City may lose its ability to effectively regulate signage in the public right-of-way. While the City can regulate time, place and manner restrictions of signs in the right-of-way, such regulations must be content neutral, and are many times ineffective and/or difficult to enforce. The City Attorney also noted that once the City allows hand-held signs it might encounter an overuse of signage in the right-of-way. ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\Study Sessions\.Tuly 13, 2010 \Study Session Code Amend_10_07_13.doc Code Amendment 09-02 Temporary Signs July 13, 2010 —Page 2 Staff has also surveyed seven nearby cities regarding temporary sign regulations. Staff has prepared a table that summarizes the regulations from these other jurisdictions. In addition, a revised table is also included that summarizes Planning Commission direction from the May 11, 2010 study session. VI. CONCLUSION The purpose of the study session is to provide additional information requested at the May 11, 2010 study session. Subsequently, staff is seeking input to prepare a draft code amendment. -411111111111,- 40. Fabiola Wong Senior Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED: AICP Acting City Planner Attachments: Attachment 1 - Table of Surveyed Cities Attachment 2- Chart with Planning Recommendations from 5/11/2010 Meeting Attachment 3 - Minutes from the May 11,2010 Planning Commission Meeting Kifers UefiF90emEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\ Study Sessions\July 13, 2010\Study Session_Code REQUIREMENTS Azusa Baldwin Park Covina Duarte El Monte La Puente Walnut Banners 30 days per calendar year. A permit and bond required Up to 30 consecutive days for up to 4 nonconsecutive times within a 12-month period. A permit is required. Up to 30 consecutive days for up to 3 nonconsecutive times within a 12-month period. A permit is required. Up to 21 consecutive days for up to 5 times per a 12-month period. Permit required. Up to 30 consecutive days within a 180-day period. Permit required. Up 90 days per calendar year. Permit required. Up to sixty days per calendar year and up to two times during one year. Banners associated with a promotional event 30 days after the opening of a business. A permit and bond required. Same as above. Same as above. One free banner allowed per a maximum of 30 days after the opening of a business. Permit required. Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. Hand-held signs Not permitted. Not permitted Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Portable (A-Frame) signs Not permitted. Permitted – Not in the public right-of-way. Planning approval/permit required. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Permitted – permit required. REQUIREMENTS Azusa Baldwin Park Covina Duarte El Monte La Puente Walnut Wind Blades Not permitted. Permitted – Permit required. Permitted – ground mounted only. Limited to a maximum of 30 days per calendar year.1 Might be allowed in lieu of flags. Permit required. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Wavers Not permitted. Permitted – Permit required. Permitted – ground mounted only. Limited to a maximum of 30 days per calendar year.2 Permitted for up 40 days within a 12-month period. Permit required. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted Spinners Not permitted. Permitted – Not in the public right-of-way. Planning approval/permit required. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. Not permitted. 1 Roof mounted wind blades requires an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. Allowed for a maximum of 30 days per calendar year. 2 Roof mounted wavers, inflatable devices or balloons requires an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. Allowed for a maximum of 30 days per calendar year. Page 1 Type of Sign Current Regulation/Discussion Options Recommendation Hand-held signs One (1) per business. Five (5) s.f. per face. Hand held signs must not impede traffic or pedestrian circulation, or obstruct visibility in parking areas, driveways, and on public street. Some of the concerns raised with this type of signs is that often the person hired blocks the street. This concern was raised by one of the Planning Option 1 – No Change. Option 2 – Add a requirement that individuals with hand held signs must be on private property and cannot occupy the sidewalk or public right-of-way. Option 3 – Eliminate. Option 2 – Add a requirement that individuals with hand held signs must be on private property and cannot occupy the sidewalk or public right-of-way. Type of Sign Current Regulation/Discussion Options Planning Commission Direction to Staff 1. Banners – Not associated with a promotional event One (1) per business. One (1) s.f. of sign are per one (1) foot of building frontage (up to 100 square feet maximum) Currently, banners are allowed to be displayed year round. Typically, banners are not made with durable material to stand the weather conditions for prolonged period of time. “Permanent” banner signs have become de-facto second wall signs, which often are installed without City’s review and approval. The banners are not architecturally compatible and can detract from the architectural quality of the commercial centers. Option 1- No change to Code. Option 2 – Allow banners for a total of 60 days within a calendar year and a total of 30 days at a time. Permit Required. Option 3 – Allow banners for a total of 90 days within a calendar year and a total of 30 days at a time. Permit Required. Option 2 - Allow banners for a total of 90 days within a calendar year. Allow flexibility in how businesses will be allowed to use those 90 days (i.e., three times per year for 30 consecutive days). Permit required. 2. Wall-mounted display frames (in lieu of window signs) No maximum. The Code is not clear pertaining to this type of signs. Enforcement would be easier if a permit is required the Code provides standards. Option 1 – No change to Code. Option 2 – Adopt standards such as size limitations, number per tenant, and restriction on multi-tenant centers. Option 3 – Eliminate. Option 3 - To eliminate. Page 2 Type of Sign Current Regulation/Discussion Options Planning Commission Direction to Staff 3. Flags Maximum of (3) vertical dimension. Maximum 50 feet in height. Permitted flags are those of a government, government agency, public institution, nonprofit agency, or similar entity, or a corporate business logo. Commercial messages, other than a corporate logo, shall not be permitted. Permit required. Flagpoles required a building permit. Therefore, this type of sign is not “temporary”. Option 1 - No change to Code. Option 2 – Relocate flags signs to another section of the sign ordinance. Option 2 - Relocate to another section of the sign ordinance, rather than under promotional signs. 4. Portable (A-Frame) Signs One (1) per business. Eight (8) sf per face (double face permitted) four (4) feet in height. Typically, business owners like to place A-Frame signs within the public right-of-way (sidewalk). Signs are not allowed in the public right-of-way. Option 1- No change to Code. Option 2 – Eliminate. Option 1- No change to Code. To be permitted within the City. 5. Wind blades Currently, the Code does not address this type of temporary signs. Therefore, they are not allowed. The City has experienced a proliferation of this type of signs. The Chamber of Commerce has raised concerns regarding signs such as wind blades. Option 1 – No change to Code. Option 2 – Allow this type of sign in conjunction with a temporary use permit or special event permit and limit the number of signs. Option 3 – Allow wind blades for up to 30 continuous days with a permit. Option 4 - A combination of option 2 & 3. Option 2 - Allow wind blades in conjunction with a temporary use permit only. Page 3 Type of Sign Current Regulation/Discussion Options Planning Commission Direction to Staff 6. Wavers Currently, the Code does not address this type of temporary signs. Therefore, this type of sign is not allowed. Option 1 – No change to Code. Option 2 – Allow this type of sign in conjunction with a temporary use permit or special event permit and limit the number of signs. Option 3 – Allow wind blades for up to 30 continuous days with a sign permit. Option 4 - A combination of option 2 & 3. Option 2 – Allow wavers in conjunction with a temporary use permit only. 7. Spinners Currently, the Code does not address this type of temporary signs. Therefore, this type of sign is not allowed. This sign is similar to an A-frame sign that provides a based with a sign mounted above that rotates with the wind. Option 1 – No change to Code. Option 2 - Allow spinners on private property in front of the storefront (same as A-frame signs). Option 2 - Allow spinners on private property in front of the storefront. Adopt regulations to limit businesses to choose between an A-Frame sign or a spinner. ADOPTED 8/24/10 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 7.13.10.doc MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF WEST COVINA Tuesday, July 13, 2010 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Stewart in the West Covina Council Chambers. Commissioner Carrico led the Pledge of Allegiance and the Commission observed a moment of silence. ROLL CALL Present: Sotelo, Carrico, Redholtz, and Holtz Absent: Stewart (excused) City Staff Present: Anderson, Wong, Garcia, Hernandez, and Smith APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting, June 8, 2010 – The minutes were approved as presented. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Forrest Wilkins, Mary Holyfield, and Jim Holyfield addressed the Commission regarding their opposition to the code amendment to allow the sales of alcoholic beverages at convenience stores operated in conjunction with service stations. B. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. FORTHCOMING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE Receive and file. Acting City Planner Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. He said that the July 27, 2010 meeting will be held to discuss proposed code amendments. Motion by Carrico, seconded by Redholtz, to approve the items listed on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0 (Stewart excused.) C. PUBLIC HEARING (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-12 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Xavier Gallardo LOCATION: 1302 Francisquito Avenue, Suite B, Sol de la Noche REQUEST: The proposal consists of a request for a conditional use permit to allow live entertainment as an accessory to a restaurant. Chairman Sotelo opened the public hearing. Planning Associate Ron Garcia presented the staff report. During his presentation, Mr. Garcia told the Commission that the restaurant is currently open and was requesting a conditional use permit to allow karoke and live entertainment such as mariachis and trio musicians. He also told the Commission that the entertainment would be in the dining area, primarily on the weekends. Mr. Garcia also explained that the entertainment is an ancillary use to dining and would not have a negative impact on parking. However, he added that if there is a negative impact, a condition had been added to address that issue which would allow for a review by the Planning Commission. Staff recommended approval of the request. Commissioner Carrico asked staff if the Commission could review the business for reasons other than a negative impact on parking. Mr. Garcia said the Commission could review the business for other issues such as excessive noise. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 – July 13, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 7.13.10.doc PROPONENTS: Salvador Olivas, Jose Corona and Oscar Villa spoke in favor of the live entertainment. They all said the mariachi band and trio would add to the relaxing atmosphere and enhance their dining experience. Mr. Villa added that he enjoyed singing karoke with his family and this restaurant is within walking distance from their home. OPPONENT: Patty Fors, representing the residents of Sunset Garden Apartments, said the apartments are directly across the street from the restaurant. She presented a petition from the residents of the apartments in opposition to allowing live entertainment in the restaurant. She said this restaurant already generates noise in the neighborhood when the doors are open and several of the residents in the apartments are often disturbed by the noise. She also said the restaurant is frequently not open for business at lunchtime, and she has noticed the restaurant owners are beginning to promote more of an evening business. REBUTTAL: Xaiver Gallardo, owner of Sol de la Noche, said he was unaware of a problem with the residents of the apartments. He also said that some of the residents of the apartments go to his restaurant. He said the entertainment would stop on time and would not continue late into the evening. There was a short discussion by the Commission regarding the testimony in opposition. Commissioner Redholtz pointed out that one of the conditions of approval required that the door be closed during hours of operation. Mr. Gallardo said that the doors are routinely closed to reduce the noise coming from the restaurant, and to enhance security in the restaurant. Commissioner Redholtz also asked if the musicians would be employees of the business. Mr. Gallardo said they would be employees. Commissioner Holtz asked about the 72-person capacity and the configuration of the tables and seats in the restaurant to accommodate that number of persons. In addition, the Commission discussed the use of the back door. Mr. Gallardo said customers are only allowed to enter through the front door. Chairman Sotelo closed the public hearing. Commissioner Carrico said that his biggest concern was the noise disturbing the residents across the street. He said he would not like to see this matter get out of control. Commissioner Holtz expressed his support of the live entertainment, however, he stated he would like to change the hours for live entertainment from 12:00 or 1:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Redholtz concurred with the remarks of the other Commissioners, and expressed his support of limiting the hours for live entertainment. Chairman Sotelo stated that he also concurred with changing the hours for live entertainment on a temporary basis, then review the operation in 90 days. There was a discussion with the applicant regarding the hours for live entertainment. Chairman Sotelo said on Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday the live entertainment would be allowed until 10:00 p.m. On Friday and Saturday live entertainment hours would be until midnight. Mr. Gallardo agreed to the change in hours and the 90-day review of operations. Chairman Sotelo also directed staff to notify residents of the review date. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Carrico, to adopt Resolution No. 10-5371, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 10-12, as amended. Motion carried 4-0 (Stewart excused.) Chairman Sotelo stated that this action is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 – July 13, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 7.13.10.doc (2) ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO. 10-11 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Onder Dirim LOCATION: 1029 Meadowside Street REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the approval of an administrative use permit for a first- and second-story addition to an existing 1,600- square foot single-story house (including 480-square foot attached garage) located on a 6,540-square foot lot. The house with the proposed addition will be 2,750 square feet (including a 480-square foot attached garage). Chairman Sotelo opened the public hearing. Acting City Planner Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During his presentation, Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant was proposing a first and second story addition to an existing 1,600 square foot, single story house. Mr. Anderson also said that the removal of several palm trees in the front yard was also proposed. He also told the Commission that staff surveyed the surrounding houses in the area and found that none of the surveyed homes were two-story homes. He said that the homes in the survey are comparable in size to the subject propety and consist mostly of 4 bedrooms. Further, Mr. Anderson said that this addition would not increase the number of bedrooms, but would make it a three-bedroom, four-bathroom house. Mr. Anderson said that the Design Review Subcommittee had reviewed the home and expressed concerns with the privacy of the surrounding residents. Mr. Anderson reviewed the Design Review guidelines and recommendations for the Commission. During the presention, Mr. Anderson also informed the Commission that staff had been in receipt of two letters of opposition, and both letters had been provided to the Commission. PROPONENT: Onder Dirim, applicant, and Wilson Tan, architect on the project, spoke in favor of the proposed addition. Mr. Dirim explained why he purchased the property and said that the rooms in the existing home were too small, and he would be unable to make the house larger unless he added a second story, due to the lot size and configuration. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the proposed addition and whether it was currently occupied. Commissioner Redholtz asked Mr. Dirim whether he was living in the home and how long ago the home had been purchased. Commissioner Holtz commented that the landscaping was dry and the entire front yard was unkempt and in need of maintenance. Mr. Dirim told the Commission that he had purchased the property six months ago and was waiting for approval for the construction to begin before moving in. In addition, he stated that he planned to remove the existing landscaping and install new landscaping in conjunction with the construction of the room additions. OPPONENTS: Joanne Wilner and Stephanie Lake spoke in opposition to the request. Mrs. Wilner said she was opposed to a second story addition, which would be out of character for the existing neighborhood. Ms. Lake told the Commission that she lives in the neighborhood and had noticed that the owner appeared to be using the garage for storage of work-related items. In addition, she said the home and property had fallen into disrepair. Ms. Lake also said it appeared that some of the owner’s employees were staying in the home once in a while. Chairman Sotelo closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 – July 13, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 7.13.10.doc There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the current condition of the home and property, and whether the proposed addition would be harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Redholtz said that he looked at the house and found it to be in disrepair and unkempt. He added that he will not support the plan presented because he feels that it’s out of character for the neighborhood. Commissioner Holtz concurred with Commissioner Redholtz and added that he was opposed to the second-story addition. He said he would support continuing the matter to allow for a redesign of the addition. He also urged the applicant to maintain the exterior of the home. Commissioner Carrico also agreed that the design of the home would be out of character for the area. He also expressed concern for the maintenance of the exterior of the home. Chairman Sotelo added that the addition would encroach upon the privacy of the adjacent neighbor. He stated that he would not support what was presented this evening. Wilson Tan, architect, asked that the Commission continue their consideration of this matter to allow him to redesign the plans. Mr. Dirim stated that he would be willing to work work staff to redesign the proposed addition. Mr. Anderson explained to the Commission that, if the proposed additional square footage falls below 2,289 square feet, it would not require an administrative use permit and, therefore, would not be before the full Commission. However, it might still be subject to review by the Design Review Subcommittee. He recommended that this matter be continued to a date uncertain. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Holtz, to continue this matter to a date uncertain. Motion carried 4-0 (Stewart excused.) D. NON HEARING ITEMS (1) PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORIZED PLANNING DIRECTOR'S MODIFICATION NO. 10-20 APPLICANT: Alvaro Banegas, Bancomer Construction LOCATION: Great Mountain Drive A proposal to install security gates on a private street, Great Mountain Drive, which is accessed from Virginia Avenue. Proposed design requires deviation from adopted Vehicular Gate standards. Planning Association Ron Garcia presented the staff report. During his presentation, Mr. Garcia stated that the property owner had requested to install security gates to protect five single-family residential homes on Great Mountain Drive near Virginia Avenue. He told the Commission that the applicant was requesting a deviation from security gate standards including guest parking and turn-around area for the development. Mr. Garcia said the proposed gate was intended to provide security for the five homes on Great Mountain Drive, deter loitering, thefts and bottles and debris left on the private driveway. Mr. Garcia also said that, as proposed, the gates would not comply with the adopted security gate standards, off-site guest parking and the required turn-around area. Due to the non-compliance with adopted security gate standards, staff recommended denial of the request. There was a discussion regarding the location of the rear property line and the location of the gate. Chairman Sotelo asked what the difference is between gates without turn- arounds on single-family residential homes and this property. Staff stated that the security gate guidelines were designed for residential developments, and not applicable to individual single-family homes. Commissioner Redholtz asked what objections Public Works has to this proposal. Miguel Hernandez, Civil Engineering Associate representing Public Works, stated that the gate being located 70 feet back from the curb could cause the cars to stack up and back up onto Virginia Avenue. Also, if a vehicle entered and didn’t want to go forward, there is no turn-around space so they would have to back out onto Virginia Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 – July 13, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 7.13.10.doc Alvaro Banegas, representing Bancomer Construction, stated that the proposed gate would not make noise because there are automatic gates designed to make less noise than a condenser. In addition, he informed the Commission that the entire development is owned by one owner who lives out of the country, and occupies one of the homes when he is here on business. The other homes that are occupied are occupied by an employee of the business and a caretaker. He added that since three of the homes are vacant, there are problems with cars parking on the private drive and debris left on the site. Mr. Banegas also said that that since this is a private driveway, the property owner is responsible for removing any trash and debris left on the property. Paul Tombrello, Chuck McCain and Marilyn McCain spoke in opposition. Mr. Tombrello stated that he’s been in opposition to these homes since they were proposed. He further added that he had understood that a security gate would not be installed on this development. He also said that the there are young people living in one of the homes and they often have parties and could be responsible for the trash and debris left on the property. He urged the Commission to deny the request for the installation of security gates. He also submitted a letter from a neighbor, which explained their opposition to the gates. Marilyn and Chuck McCain said they live directly across from Great Mountain Drive. They explained the issues they have encountered in the development of the homes, their opposition to the security gate, and why it would be difficult to use the security gates. Mr. McCain also stated that he had checked with the West Covina Police Department and found that there weren’t any crimes reported on Great Mountain Drive. Mr. Banegas said that his client was not the original developer and had nothing to do with the way the homes were constructed. He added that the gates would prevent non- residents from loitering and drinking on the property. In addition, Mr. Banegas said that he would like to clarify that Public Works doesn’t maintain the street, since it’s a driveway, not a public street. There was also a discussion regarding whether or not the owner was intending to sell the homes. Mr. Banegas said that, to his knowledge, the owner was not planning to sell any of the homes. The Commission discussed the possibility of moving the gate closer to Virginia Avenue. Mr. Hernandez said that moving the gates would cause vehicles to back up onto Virginia Avenue while waiting to gain access to the property. The Commission also discussed the possibility that a condition of approval had been added, prohibiting the installation of gates during the original approval process. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the discussion of this matter to the next regular meeting, July 27, 2010 to allow staff sufficient time to review minutes and resolutions from the time of the original approval to determine whether or not a condition prohibiting security gates had been adopted at that time. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Holtz, to continue this matter until the next regular meeting, July 27, 2010. Motion carried 4-0 (Stewart excused.) (2) CODE AMENDMENT INITIATION OFF-SALE ALCOHOL IN SERVICE STATION At the Planning Commission meeting on June 8, 2010, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a code amendment initiation to consider adopting standards to allow the sale of alcohol at service stations. Acting City Planner Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During his presentation, Mr. Anderson told the Commission that Commissioner Redholtz had requested that a code amendment be initiated to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages at convenience stores operated in conjunction with service stations. Mr. Anderson also said that this matter had been considered by the City Council approximately two years ago. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 – July 13, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 7.13.10.doc Joanne Wilner, Alfred Williams, Fred Sykes, Shirley Buchanan John Shewmaker, and Ken Kang, spoke regarding this matter. Mrs. Wilner, Mr. Willians, Mr. Sykes, and Ms. Buchanan spoke in opposition. They expressed their concern that allowing the sale of beer and wine at service station convenience stores would encourage drunk driving. In addition, they expressed their concern that service station convenience stores would be located close to schools, parks and other areas where children are present. Further, they said that alcoholic beverages are available for purchase at a number of other retail stores and allowing service station convenience stores to sell them would result in the oversaturation of ABC licenses within the City. Mr. Sykes expressed his agreement with the comments of the other opponents but added that, if the Commission chose to go forward with the proposed code amendment, he would favor strict regulations be placed on service station convenience stores offering alcoholic beverages for sale. Mr. Kang and Mr. Shewmaker spoke in favor of the code amendment. Mr. Shewmaker expressed his support of the code amendment. He also agreed with the suggestions by Mr. Sykes to allow the sales of alcoholic beverages safely. He said that as long as there are a limited number of service stations selling alcoholic beverages and they are selling them under strict rules, he would be in favor of this code amendment. Mr. Kang stated that he’s a non-drinker but supports the rights of others to purchase alcoholic beverages where it’s more convenient. In addition, Mr. Kang pointed out that family supermarkets and other retailers are allowed to sell all types of alcoholic beverages, while service station convenience markets usually only sell beer and wine. He added that he would not like to see West Covina lose business and that many service station convenience stores are safer because of the enhanced security cameras and lighting at their locations. Mr. Kang also suggested that service station convenience stores requesting the sale of alcoholic beverages be required to meet a minimum square footage, and have other merchandise and food for sale. Commissioner Redholtz spoke regarding the reasons he was proposing this code amendment. Among his reasons were the change in the economic situation, and because he was approached by service station owners who would like to remain competitive with other retailers. In addition, he added that the average service station owner makes very little profit on the sale of gasoline, and service bays are expensive to operate because they have to pay mechanics better than minimum wage. He further stated that service bays are being replaced by convenience stores because they are more profitable. In addition, Commissioner Redholtz said it was his intention to heavily condition and restrict the sale of alcoholic beverages so that not every service station would be approved to sell them. Commissioner Redholtz also said that he was proposing the sale of beer only and that the convenience stores would have to meet square footage requirements and parking requirements without requiring a variance. He stated that this was a pro-business initiative to help service stations operating in West Covina. Commissioner Holtz said he would support the initiation of the code amendment as long as standards are imposed and met. Commissioner Carrico said that he is conflicted and he understands both sides of the issue but was concerned that every service station owner would apply for this use. He also stated that he would prefer to keep the code as it is. Chairman Sotelo said that he would favor strict regulations and supports the right of the service station owners to try and apply for the right to sell beer. In addition, he stated his support of the proposed code amendment and concurred with Commissioners Redholtz and Holtz that this matter should be considered and discussed. Chairman Sotelo directed staff to add the square footage standards and parking requirements as part of the conditions of approval, have staff draft a proposed ordinance and schedule a public hearing. In addition, Chairman Sotelo directed staff to notify interested parties from list formed during the last code amendment hearing. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 – July 13, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 7.13.10.doc Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Holtz, to adopt Resolution No. 10-5372, to initiate a Code Amendment to allow the sales of beer at convenience stores operated by service stations. Motion carried 3-1 (Carrico opposed, Stewart excused.) (3) STUDY SESSION CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-02 TEMPORARY SIGNS A study session to review current code requirements and potential revisions or modifications to Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal code related to temporary signs. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide comment and direction as appropriate. Senior Planner Fabiola Wong presented the staff report. During her presentation, she told the Commission that staff had gathered information on hand-held signs in the public right of way. Staff consulted with the City Attorney’s office and found that the city has the right to prohibit hand held signs in the public right of way or on public property, but may not restrict what the signs say due to freedom of speach. She added that a city can restrict the time, place and manner of such signs. Also staff included a table in the staff report that outlines what other cities allow for the display of banners and regulate the length of time they may be displayed. Commissioners Redholtz and Carrico expressed their support of the City Attorney’s recommendation that the Commission not allow hand-held signs in the public right of way. Commissioner Carrico expressed his agreement. After a short discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that this be added into the code amendment. Joanne Wilner expressed her concern with temporary banners that become permanent signs, A-frame signs, wavers and wind-blown signs. She also stated her opinion that these types of signs contribute to the unkempt appearance of some shopping centers and present a tripping hazard to pedestrians. In addition, Mrs. Wilner expressed her concern with signs that are advertising items or products that aren’t available in the shopping centers where the signs are located. Staff recommended that additional language clarifying the regulation of hand-held signs be added to the code amendment text. Commissioner Carrico expressed his support of staff’s recommendation. Staff was directed to prepare an ordinance for consideration at a public hearing to be scheduled in the future. E. CONTINUATION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Continuation of Item A, Oral Communications - None F. COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Commissioner Redholtz thanked City staff and MDA for the Fourth of July Celebration. Commissioner Carrico requested that a study session be scheduled to discuss guesthouse code requirements. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: July 6, 2010 Regular meeting: Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 – July 13, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 7.13.10.doc Second reading of Ordinance adopting Code Amendment No. 10-01, Churches and Religious Facilities conditionally permitted in Manufacturing Zone. It will become effective sometime in August 2010. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT: a. Subcommittee Minutes: June 8, 2010 June 22, 2010 G. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Carrico, to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA ITEM NO. D-2 DATE: May 11,2010 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-02 TEMPORARY SIGNS I. DESCRIPTION On October 13, 2009, the Planning Commission received information regarding temporary signs. The current sign ordinance, which includes regulations for temporary signs, was comprehensively reviewed fourteen years ago. Due to the changing categories of temporary signs, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 09-5332 initiating Code Amendment No. 09-02 related to temporary signs. II. DISCUSSION The code amendment was initiated June 9, 2009. The request was to allow consideration on whether current standards for temporary signs were appropriate for current conditions. The current sign ordinance has been an effective tool for the regulations of the location, size and placement of signage throughout the community, particularly with respect to permanent signs but not for temporary signs since they keep evolving through time. Following the code amendment initiation, representatives of the West Covina Chamber of Commerce attended the first study session and provided input. During that study session, the Planning Commission gave direction to staff to meet with the Chamber of Commerce to further discuss their concern. On December 8, 2009, staff met with the Chamber representatives. The Chamber of Commerce supports a mechanism of requiring a permit for all temporary signs to assist the City's Community Enhancement Division in enforcing the City's sign ordinance. Attached is a table prepared by staff to assist the Commission in the discussion of temporary signs. The table provides the current regulation, a discussion, options and recommendation for each type of temporary signs. ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\ Study SessionsWay 11, 2010 PC Study Session\ Staff Report_2nd Study Session.doc Code Amendment 09-02 Temporary Signs May 11, 2010 - Page 2 III. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the information provided in the attached table and provide appropriate direction to staff. PREPARED BY: Fabiola Wong Senior Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Jef(4dgis-on, AICP Acting City Planner Attachments: Attachment 1 — Table Attachment 2 - Staff Report, 1st Study Session, October 13, 2009 ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009 \09-02 Temp Signs\Study Sessions \May 11,2010 PC Study Session\Stnff Report 2nd Study Session.doc Page 1 Type of Sign Current Regulation/Discussion Options Recommendation 1. Banners – Not associated with a promotional event One (1) per business. One (1) s.f. of sign are per one (1) foot of building frontage (up to 100 square feet maximum) Currently, banners are allowed to be displayed year round. Typically, banners are not made with durable material to stand the weather conditions for prolonged period of time. “Permanent” banner signs have become de-facto second wall signs, which often are installed without City’s review and approval. The banners are not architecturally compatible and can detract from the architectural quality of the commercial centers. Option 1- No change to Code. Option 2 – Allow banners for a total of 60 days within a calendar year and a total of 30 days at a time. Permit Required. Option 3 – Allow banners for a total of 90 days within a calendar year and a total of 30 days at a time. Permit Required. Option 2- Allow banners for a total of 60 days within a calendar year and a total of 30 days at a time. Permit Required. 2. Wall-mounted display frames (in lieu of window signs) No maximum. The Code is not clear pertaining to this type of signs. Enforcement would be easier if a permit is required the Code provides standards. Option 1 – No change to Code. Option 2 – Adopt standards such as size limitations, number per tenant, and restriction on multi-tenant centers. Option 3 – Eliminate. Option 3 – Eliminate. Wall-mounted display frames are not a type of sign that is used often. In shopping centers, if every tenant took advantage it might appear to be an excessive number of signs. 3. Flags Maximum of (3) vertical dimension. Maximum 50 feet in height. Permitted flags are those of a government, government agency, public institution, nonprofit agency, or similar entity, or a corporate business logo. Commercial messages, other than a corporate logo, shall not be permitted. Permit required. Flagpoles required a building permit. Therefore, this type of sign is not “temporary”. Option 1 - No change to Code. Option 2 – Relocate flags signs to another section of the sign ordinance. Option 2 – Relocate to another section of the sign ordinance, rather than under promotional signs. Page 2 Item Current Regulation/Discussion Options Recommendation 4. Hand held signs One (1) per business. Five (5) s.f. per face. Hand held signs must not impede traffic or pedestrian circulation, or obstruct visibility in parking areas, driveways, and on public street. Some of the concerns raised with this type of signs is that often the person hired blocks the street. This concern was raised by one of the Planning Commissioners who observed a person in a wheel chair having difficulties in getting through due to the person holding and juggling the hand held sign. Option 1 – No change. Option 2 – Add a requirement that individuals with hand held signs must be on private property and cannot occupy the sidewalk or public right-of-way. Option 3 - Eliminate Option 2 – Add a requirement that individuals with hand held signs must be on private property and cannot occupy the sidewalk or public right-of-way. 5. Portable (A-Frame) Signs One (1) per business. Eight (8) sf per face (double face permitted) four (4) feet in height. Typically, business owners like to place A-Frame signs within the public right-of-way (sidewalk). Signs are not allowed in the public right-of-way. Option 1- No change to Code. Option 2 – Eliminate. Option 1 – No change to Code. 6. Wind blades Currently, the Code does not address this type of temporary signs. Therefore, they are not allowed. The City has experienced a proliferation of this type of signs. The Chamber of Commerce has raised concerns regarding signs such as wind blades. Option 1 – No change to Code. Option 2 – Allow this type of sign in conjunction with a temporary use permit or special event permit and limit the number of signs. Option 3 – Allow wind blades for up to 30 continuous days with a permit. Option 4 - A combination of option 2 & 3. Option 4 – A combination of option 2 & 3. Wind blades could be allowed for up to 30 days as a promotional sign (like a banner) and also be allowed to have additional wind blades if approved for an event under a temporary use permit. Page 3 Item Current Regulation/Discussion Options Recommendation 7. Waver Currently, the Code does not address this type of temporary signs. Therefore, this type of sign is not allowed. Option 1 – No change to Code. Option 2 – Allow this type of sign in conjunction with a temporary use permit or special event permit and limit the number of signs. Option 3 – Allow wind blades for up to 30 continuous days with a sign permit. Option 4 - A combination of option 2 & 3. Option 2 – Allow this type of sign in conjunction with a temporary use permit or special event permit and limit the number of signs. 8. Spinners Currently, the Code does not address this type of temporary signs. Therefore, this type of sign is not allowed. This sign is similar to an A-frame sign that provides a based with a sign mounted above that rotates with the wind. Option 1 – No change to Code. Option 2 - Allow spinners on private property in front of the storefront (same as A-frame signs). Option 2 - Allow spinners on private property in front of the storefront. Adopted 6/8/10 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 5.11.10.doc MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF WEST COVINA Tuesday, May 11, 2010 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Stewart in the West Covina Council Chambers. Commissioner Holtz led the Pledge of Allegiance and the Commission observed a moment of silence. ROLL CALL Present: Sotelo, Carrico, Redholtz, Stewart, Holtz Absent: None City Staff Present: Anderson, Davis, Fortuna, Smith, and Wong APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting, April 27, 2010 - The minutes were approved as presented. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion by Commissioner Carrico, seconded by Commissioner Redholtz, to nominate Commissioner Sotelo as Chairman. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Commissioner Redholtz seconded by Commissioner Carrico, to close nominations and to elect Commissioner Sotelo as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Commissioner Redholtz, seconded by Chairman Sotelo, to nominate Commissioner Carrico as Vice Chairman. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Commissioner Redholtz, seconded by Chairman Sotelo, to close nominations and to elect Commissioner Carrico as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. Motion carried 5-0. A. OTHER MATTERS OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is the time when any member of the public may bring a matter to the attention of the Commission that is within the scope of duties assigned to the Commission. The Ralph M. Brown Act limits the Planning Commission and staff's ability to respond to comments on non-agendized matters at the time such comments are made. Thus, your comments may be agendized for a future meeting or referred to staff. The Commission may discuss or ask questions for clarification, if desired, at this time. None B. CONSENT CALENDAR This is the time for the public to comment on any item on the Consent Calendar. As Consent Calendar items are considered routine in nature, they are normally enacted in one motion. The Chairperson may remove a questioned Consent Calendar item for separate action. 1. FORTHCOMING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE Receive and file. Acting City Planner Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During his presentation, Mr. Anderson told the Commission that, due to a lack of business, the May 25, 2010 regular meeting would be cancelled. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 – May 11, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 5.11.10.doc Motion by Commissioner Stewart, seconded by Commissioner Redholtz, to approve the items listed. Motion carried 5-0. C. PUBLIC HEARING (1) CODE AMENDMENT NO. 10-01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-03 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: David Cook for Christian Fellowship Bible Church LOCATION: 1773 San Bernardino Road, Units 7-10 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a code amendment to Section 26-597 of the West Covina Municipal Code to allow churches in the Manufacturing (M-1) Zone by conditional use permit and a conditional use permit to allow the operation of an 8,256-square foot church. Chairman Sotelo opened the public hearing. Planning Assistant Amy Davis presented the staff report. During her presentation, Ms. Davis reviewed the history of the property, which included the development of the industrial condominium project that currently occupies the site. In addition, she explained that the applicant was requesting a code amendment to allow churches in manufacturing zones. She added that, under the current code, churches are allowed in 12 other zones with a conditional use permit. Ms. Davis also said that the proposed church would be located in four of the units, and reviewed various aspects of the churches’ proposed use of the units, proposed hours of operation, and the replacement of the roll-up doors on the four units with aluminum and glass store front doors that are consistent in appearance to the existing windows. Further, Ms. Davis said that staff proposed the addition of a condition requiring parishioners to park in front of units seven, eight, nine and ten or in the additional parking area to the rear of the property to prevent them from blocking other units’ roll up doors. Commissioner Carrico asked for a clarification on whether the condition had been added to the resolution of approval. PROPONENTS: Don Cook, representing DC Corporation; Senior Pastor Edwin Ormeo, Christian Fellowship Bible Church; Deacon Nelson Alura, Christian Fellowship Bible Church; Deacon Tony Ormeo, Christian Fellowship Bible Church; and Cirilo Gepanaga, church member, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Cook stated his opinion that this use would fit in well with the project, because most of the other tenants were present during the week, and this use would occur on the weekends. He also stated his belief that the church would have no negative impact on street parking or traffic in the area because San Bernardino Road is mainly an industrial area and there is less traffic in the evenings and on weekends. Addressing the possible loss of tax revenue, Mr. Cook said that the lost income would be minimal. Mr. Cook also answered questions by the Commission regarding the parking spaces and the use of overflow parking to the rear of the property. He told the Commission that there was an agreement between the Owner’s Association and the church allowing parishioners to park in other tenant spaces on Wednesday evenings and Sundays. Mr. Cook added that the Owner’s Association was supportive of the church use. There was also a discussion regarding the roll up doors on the other units, and how church members would be told about not being allowed to park in front of doors belonging to units not owned by the church. Pastor Edwin Ormeo addressed the Commission regarding the church community, and gave the Commission a short history of the church, and their beliefs. He added that most Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 – May 11, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 5.11.10.doc of the parishioners lived in West Covina and they would like the opportunity to establish themselves in the West Covina community. Cirilo Gepanaga, parishoner, Deacon Nelson Alura, and Deacon Tony Ormeo expressed their desire to have their own building and be located in West Covina where many of their parishioners reside. OPPONENTS: Lloyd Johnson spoke in opposition. During his testimony, Mr. Johnson said he is a resident of the neighborhood and felt there are already a sufficient number of churches located there. In addition, he expressed concern over the loss of revenue from the industrial property, a possible negative impact on traffic in the area and concern that the congregation will become too large for the spaces it will to occupy. Chairman Sotelo closed the public hearing. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the number of church members at worship services and what remedies could be employed to accommodate the additional vehicles. There was also a discussion regarding the location of the bible study and the possible addition of other worship services, if necessary. Commissioner Stewart expressed this opinion that other cities allow churches in the M-1 zone, and he wouldn’t object to allowing this church at this location because there is plenty of parking and the church would be located to the rear of the project. Commissioner Redholtz said he concurred with Commissioner Stewart and would support this request. Commissioner Holtz stated his opinion that with the hours on Sunday, the church wouldn’t have an impact on the area and expressed his support of the request. Commissioner Carrico said he understood Mr. Johnson’s opposition; however, he concurred with the remainder of the Commission and would support this request as well. Chairman Sotelo said that he would like to see growth and development in this portion of the City and expressed his support of the project. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Holtz, to adopt Resolution No. 10-5366 recommending approval of Code Amendment 10-01 to the City Council and Resolution No. 10-5367 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 10-03. Motion carried 5-0. Chairman Sotelo stated that final action regarding Code Amendment No. 10-01 will be considered by the City Council at a public hearing tentatively scheduled for June 1, 2010. The action regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 10-05 will be final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days. D. NON HEARING ITEMS (1) PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORIZED PLANNING DIRECTOR’S MODIFICATION NO. 10-13 APPLICANT: Seyed Mousavi (Hejrat Foundation) LOCATION: 1505 West Garvey Avenue North A proposal to increase the parking lot at a cultural center/religious facility by adding a temporary parking area comprised of gravel. Acting City Planner Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During his presentation, Mr. Anderson told the Commission that this application consists of the addition of a gravel parking area to an existing asphalt parking lot at the northwest corner of the property. He also said that this proposal would eliminate four parking spaces on the asphalt parking lot, add nine parking spaces located on the gravel parking lot, which would result in five additional parking spaces. Parking lot standards have been adopted and are in place, but the applicant would like to deviate from that standard as part of this modification. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 – May 11, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 5.11.10.doc There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the expiration of the approval for this project and the cost of paving the subject area instead of using loose gravel. Mr. Reza Fateh, representing the applicant, answered questions by the Commission and informed the Commission that using gravel would be considerably less expensive. He also said that due to necessary improvements to the building, and less revenue because of the economic downturn, the center would not be able to install the additional parking if they were required to use asphalt. He also spoke about future construction of a new building, which would be located on the proposed gravel area. Mr. Fateh said that the planned construction would probably take place in two to three years, depending on the center’s income and revenue. No one spoke in opposition. The Commission considered the necessity of adding the parking spaces and whether the required parking could be waived without a variance. Commissioner Redholtz asked why the tandem parking spaces originally approved were not installed. Mr. Fateh said that there were three trees that would have to be removed to accommodate the tandem parking spaces and, since the subject site was available, the decision was made to preserve the trees. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the cost of the improvement and the maintenance of the gravel. It was the consensus of the Commission that the request for a modification be approved. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Carrico, to approve Planning Director’s Modification No. 10-13. Motion carried 5-0. Chairman Sotelo stated that this action is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days. (2) STUDY SESSION CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-02 TEMPORARY SIGNS A study session to review potential revisions to standards for temporary signs in the West Covina Municipal Code. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide comment and direction as appropriate. Senior Planner Fabiola Wong presented the staff report. She also showed the Commission a power point presentation and reviewed past discussions regarding temporary signs and banners in the community. During her presentation, Ms. Wong reviewed staff’s recommendations regarding various types of signs. Dan Smith, Senior Community Enhancement Officer, spoke to the Commission regarding the manner in which they intend to enforce the new regulations. He said they would remain reactive to complaints, with the exceptions of signs that may be blocking the public right-of-way, or infringing upon the safety of pedestrians and traffic. Commissioner Holtz asked if all signs have permits and how staff would inform business owners of the new Code. The Commission discussed the current regulations regarding banners, flag signs, hand- held signs, A-frame signs, wind blade signs, wavers, and spinning signs. Commissioner Redholtz asked Mr. Smith if Community Enhancement was aware of the temporary banner being placed over the sign at the Heights. Mr. Smith spoke to the Commission regarding steps taken by Community Enhancement to enforce the current Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 – May 11, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 5.11.10.doc sign regulations. Mr. Smith also said that Community Enhancement intends to begin assigning staff on weekends to enforce the Code. Commissioner Redholtz expressed his concern with banners at West Covina Heights, Pacific Communities and Quail Ridge Shopping Center. He requested that Community Enhancement look into this matter. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to research areas of concern to the Commission and reschedule this matter for another study session in the future. E. CONTINUATION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is the time when any member of the public may bring a matter to the attention of the Commission that is within the scope of duties assigned to the Commission. The Ralph M. Brown Act limits the Planning Commission and staff's ability to respond to comments on non-agendized matters at the time such comments are made. Thus, your comments may be agendized for a future meeting or referred to staff. The Commission may discuss or ask questions for clarification, if desired, at this time. None F. COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS This is the time when any member of the Commission may bring a matter to the attention of the full Commission that is within the scope of duties assigned to the Commission. Any item that was considered during the public hearing portion is not appropriate for discussion in this section of the agenda. NO COMMISSION ACTION CAN BE TAKEN AT THIS TIME. If the Commission desires to discuss an issue raised by a resident or take an action, the Commission may vote to agendize the matter for the next meeting. The Commission may discuss or ask questions for clarification, if desired, at this time. Commissioner Carrico welcomed Commissioner Holtz to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Redholtz thanked past Chairman Stewart for his outstanding service this past year. He also congratulated Chairman Sotelo on his election as Chairman and welcomed Commissioner Holtz to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Stewart thanked staff for their help during his term as Chairman. He also thanked the other Commissioners for their support. Commissioner Holtz said he considered it an honor to be appointed to the Planning Commission. Chairman Sotelo welcomed Commissioner Holtz to the Planning Commission and thanked Commissioner Stewart for his service as Chairman this past year. Chairman Sotelo also appointed Commissioners Carrico and Redholtz to the Design Review Subcommittee. He further appointed Commissioner Stewart as the alternate for this committee. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: This is an oral presentation of City Council matters and actions of the listed meeting which are in the Commission’s area of interest. Regular Meeting, May 4, 2010 – Appointment of Don Holtz to the Planning Commission and the reappointment of Chairman Sotelo and Commissioners Stewart, Redholtz, and Carrico. Regular meeting, May 18, 2010 – Initiation of Code Amendment No. 10-02, Automobile Repair in Residential Zones. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 – May 11, 2010 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2010 MINUTES\minutes 5.11.10.doc PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT: Mr. Anderson stated that the Project Status Report and the Monthly Status Report are included with the Agenda. He also thanked Commissioner Stewart for his service as Chairman. He informed the Design Review Subcommittee that there will be a Subcommittee meeting even though there is no Planning Commission meeting. G. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Carrico to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. :CD City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA ITEM NO. D-3 DATE: October 13, 2009 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-02 TEMPORARY SIGNS DESCRIPTION On June 9, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 09-5332 initiating Code Amendment No. 09-02 related to temporary signs. The initiation of this code amendment requires that a proposed code amendment be presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation and the code amendment will be presented to the City Council. II. DISCUSSION The purpose of the sign regulations is to promote and protect the general health, safety, property, and welfare of the City and to preserve the City's aesthetics through the regulation of signs. The sign regulations minimize and reduce the visual clutter and distractions to the general public, promote traffic and traveler's safety and enhance the free flow of traffic in the community. The elimination of visual clutter and the protection of pedestrian and vehicular travel create a more attractive, clean, and orderly city that is important in supporting business, commerce, and the protection of private property. The sign code provides regulations for "non-promotional temporary signs" and "promotional signs — generally." Non-promotional temporary signs are allowed for builder and/or future use identification signs and for sale, for lease and for rent signs. These signs require the review and approval of a Sign Administrative Review application (staff review). The code currently allows a broad range of temporary signs. The following criteria applies to all temporary signs: (a) Promotional signs are permitted only for enclosed tenant spaces normally allowed exterior signage and cannot be used as a use's main signage instead of a permanent sign. (b) No promotional sign shall obstruct visibility for vehicles and pedestrians, and cannot encroach upon or overhang a public right-of-way or adjacent property. Current Temporary Sign Regulations The following chart indicates the types of temporary signs currently allowed by the West Covina Municipal Code. Type of Sign Current 1. Banners One (1) per business. One (1) s.f. of sign area per one (1) foot of building frontage (up to 100 square feet maximum). (Single-face only). ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\Study Sessions\Study Session_Code Amend_09-02.doc Code Amendment 09-02 Temporary Signs October 13, 2009 - Page 2 2. Wall-mounted Display Frames (in lieu of Window Signs). No Maximum 3. Flags Maximum of (3) three vertical dimension 4. Hand held signs One (1) per business. Five (5) s.f. per face. 5. Portable (A-Frame) signs One (1) per business. Eight (8) s.f. per face (double face permitted). Four (4) feet high. 6. Pole-mounted Vertical Banners (only for uses with approved outdoor display and more than 75,000 s.f. of lot area). Two (2) per light pole. 24 s.f. per face. Maximum 35 feet. Minimum Vertical clearance of 14.5 feet above ground level. 7. Small balloons (only for uses with approved out- door display and more than 75,000 s.f. of lot area). No maximum. Individual balloons may not be more than 36 inches in any dimension. Maximum 95 feet above ground level. 8. Pennants (only for uses with approved outdoor display and more than 75,000 s.f of lot area). No maximum. Each pennant shall be no larger than 3 feet by 4 feet per face. In addition, there has been a proliferation of other type of signs currently not addressed in the code such as wind blades, wavers, and spinners. Wind blades are those signs affixed to the ground or roof that are portable. Normally, this type of sign consists of a fiberglass pole with a flag design printed on polyester knit fabric. Wavers are a type of inflatable signage. This type of sign includes an air blower that requires electricity. These inflatable tubular signs are available in different sizes and are usually bright in color. Some of these inflatable signs are up to 20 feet in height and sometimes have arms that are approximately 6.5 feet in width. Spinner signs are similar to an A-Frame sign as they are generally placed on a paved area. This type of sign has a base with a sign mounted above that rotates with the wind. Spinner signs are made of steel with a standing height of approximately 40 inches. The sign provides a frame that accommodates approximately 45 square feet of sign area. VI. CONCLUSION Generally the sign regulations protect the public from uncontrolled sign placement in the community. Periodically, the community (City Council, Planning Commission, Chamber of Commerce, etc.) will identify areas of the Zoning Ordinance, including its sign regulations, which need revision for the good of the community. As with other sections of the Municipal Code, over time modifications are necessary in response to changing community characteristics. This code amendment responds to the tempOrary sign proliferation and consideration for new standards to be incorporated in the sign section of the Municipal Code. Staff intends to meet with the Chamber of Commerce to have them participate in the process. As such, staff is seeking input to define the type of sign that will be evaluated. Following the meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, staff will schedule a follow up study session that incorporates the input from the ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs \Study Sessions \Study Session_Code Amend_09-02.doe c- ) Code Amendment 09-02 Temporary Signs October 13, 2009 - Page 3 Planning Commission to evaluate changes/alternatives to the Municipal Code. Subsequently, staff will draft the code amendment that will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. dgg:IL Lam._ • Fabiola Wong • Senior Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED: JefrAdiderson, AICP Acting City Planner ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\Study Sessions\Study Session Code Amend_09-02.doc APPROVED 11/10/09 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2009 MINUTES\10.13.09 minutes.doc MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF WEST COVINA Tuesday, October 13, 2009 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Stewart in the West Covina Council Chambers. Commissioner Carrico led the Pledge of Allegiance and the Commission observed a moment of silence. ROLL CALL Present: Sotelo, Redholtz, Stewart, Sykes, Carrico Absent: None City Staff Present: Anderson, Davis, Wong and de Zara APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting, September 22, 2009 – Commissioner Redholtz asked that his comment regarding the extension request be included in the minutes. The minutes were approved as amended. A. OTHER MATTERS OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is the time when any member of the public may bring a matter to the attention of the Commission that is within the scope of duties assigned to the Commission. The Ralph M. Brown Act limits the Planning Commission and staff's ability to respond to comments on non-agendized matters at the time such comments are made. Thus, your comments may be agendized for a future meeting or referred to staff. The Commission may discuss or ask questions for clarification, if desired, at this time. None B. CONSENT CALENDAR This is the time for the public to comment on any item on the Consent Calendar. As Consent Calendar items are considered routine in nature, they are normally enacted in one motion. The Chairperson may remove a questioned Consent Calendar item for separate action. 1. FORTHCOMING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE Receive and file. 2. EXTENSION OF TIME PRECISE PLAN NO. 06-16 VARIANCE NO. 07-10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 06-23 APPLICANT: Hector Sanchez LOCATION: 928 South Glendora Avenue The applicant is requesting the second one-year extension of time on the above- referenced items. Acting City Planner Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. Commissioner Redholtz asked for clarification regarding the reason for the extension request. Jesse Hernandez, representing the applicant for Precise Plan No. 07-10 and Variance No. 06-16, said that the delay was due to their inability to secure financing. Mr. Hernandez also told the Commission that they were hopeful that their financing would be secured in a short time. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 – October 13, 2009 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2009 MINUTES\10.13.09 minutes.doc Chairman Stewart requested that the applicants clean and maintain the property. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Sotelo, to approve the items listed. Motion carried 5-0. HEARING PROCEDURE: You are encouraged by this Commission to express your views on any matter set for public hearing. It is our procedure to first receive the report of the Planning staff, then to ask for public testimony; first from those in favor of the matter, followed by testimony from those in opposition to it, and, if there be opposition, to allow those in favor, rebuttal testimony only as to the points brought up in opposition. To testify on a matter, you need to simply come forward to the lectern at the appropriate time, give your name and address and make your statement. In addition, please sign in on the sheet provided at the podium so it will facilitate preparation of our minutes. Do not be concerned with your possible lack of experience in public hearings. We are interested in what you say, not your level of expertise as a public speaker. After a hearing has been closed, you may not further speak on the matter unless requested to do so by a member of the Commission. C. PUBLIC HEARING (1) ZONE CHANGE NO. 09-02 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Frank Rizzi, F & C Corporation LOCATION: 855 North Lark Ellen Avenue REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a zone change for the subject property from “Single-Family Residential” (R-1) to “Office-Professional” (O-P). Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Planning Assistant Amy Davis presented the staff report. Ms. Davis explained to the Commission that the property, and the adjacent hospital property were zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and the General Plan designation was O-P, Office Professional. She told the Commission that staff was recommending the continuation of this matter to allow them sufficient time to provide public notification for the re-zoning of the adjacent hospital property. Frank Rizzi, applicant, told the Commission that he was requesting the zone change to be able to make minor modifications to his building. However, he said he was agreeable to the continuation of this matter. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the adjacent property. Staff informed the Commission that they had been in contact with the property owner and they had indicated that they were not opposed to the zone change. However, they do not appear to desire to initiate an application for a zone change. After a short discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to continue this matter to November 10, 2009 as recommended by staff. Motion by Carrico, seconded by Sykes, to continue this item to November 10, 2009. Motion carried 5-0. D. NON HEARING ITEMS (1) TWO-YEAR REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 06-05 (ON-SALE ALCOHOL, LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCING) APPLICANT: Crazy Horse Restaurant LOCATION: 1360 West Garvey Avenue South Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 – October 13, 2009 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2009 MINUTES\10.13.09 minutes.doc Review of operation. The Crazy Horse Restaurant has been operating for approximately two years. A revised security plan has been utilized since March 10, 2009. Recommendation to receive and file. Planning Assistant Amy Davis presented the staff report. Jay Nuccio, owner of Crazy Horse Restaurant, and Sergeant David Lee, representing West Covina Police Department, also spoke regarding this matter. During her presentation, Ms. Davis told the Commission that Mr. Nuccio and Chief Wills of the West Covina Police Department had met regarding a new security plan to address issues at the Crazy Horse Restaurant. Chief Wills had recommended the installation of additional surveillance cameras to help address crimes committed in the parking lot. Sergeant Lee spoke regarding the reduction in the number of service calls and arrests associated with the business. He also recommended that the additional cameras be installed. Commissioners Redholtz and Sykes expressed their concern with the large number of incidents requiring police service calls. Commissioner Sykes also stated his concern that incidents might become more frequent during the holidays. Commissioner Redholtz added that he would prefer to conduct another formal review in one year. Commissioners Carrico and Sotelo said they would prefer to consider this matter under the Consent Calendar in the future. They suggested that if there were problems at the site, a formal review could be placed on the agenda for the Commission’s consideration. Commissioner Sotelo pointed out that Mr. Nuccio had been cooperative in the past. Motion by Sykes, seconded by Redholtz, to schedule another review in six months. Motion failed 3-2, (Carrico, Sotelo, Stewart opposed). There was further discussion regarding scheduling another review. Motion by Sotelo, seconded by Carrico, to review this matter under the Consent Calendar in six months. Motion carried 3-2, (Redholtz, Sykes opposed). (2) STUDY SESSION CODE AMENDMENT INITIATION WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES The proposed code amendment consists of certain amendments to Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal Code related to wireless telecommunications facilities. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission initiate a code amendment regarding wireless telecommunications facilities and provide comment and direction as appropriate. Planning Assistant Amy Davis presented the staff report. During her presentation, Ms. Davis told the Commission that staff would like to review the code to determine if updates were needed to address new issues that had arisen since the current code standards were adopted. Commissioner Sykes requested that staff conduct comprehensive research in the area of electromagnetic fields and their impact on human health. Specifically, he requested that staff research include studies conducted in other countries. Staff informed the Commission that federal law prohibited the denial of a wireless telecommunication facility based on health related issues. Chairman Stewart asked that consideration be given to requiring a 100-foot separation between facilities and requiring collocation on existing cell towers to help minimize the number of towers that are built. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 – October 13, 2009 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2009 MINUTES\10.13.09 minutes.doc It was the consensus of the Commission that the resolution initiating the code amendment should be adopted. Motion by Carrico, seconded by Sotelo, to waive further reading of the body of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 09-5339 initiating a code amendment regarding wireless telecommunications facilities. Motion carried 5-0. (3) STUDY SESSION CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-02 TEMPORARY SIGNS A study session to discuss a code amendment to consider revisions and/or additions to temporary signs per the Municipal Code. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide comment and direction as appropriate. Senior Planner Fabiola Wong presented the staff report. During her presentation, Ms. Wong told the Commission that promotional signs, waving signs, spinning signs and inflatable signs are considered to be temporary. She also told the Commission that staff intended to meet with the West Covina Chamber of Commerce to receive input regarding the needs of businesses in the city. Commissioner Redholtz asked about the process required to allow a temporary banner. There was a short discussion regarding the approval process for banners. In addition, consideration was given to hand-held signs, A-frame signs and spinning signs. Michael Miller, President of the West Covina Chamber of Commerce, spoke regarding signs infringing on the public right-of-way and temporary banners that become permanent signage for businesses. He expressed his opinion that enforcement of the code would be helpful. In addition, Mr. Miller agreed to meet with staff to discuss the issues surrounding temporary signs. The Commission also considered the definition of temporary signs, including painted windows, and the enforcement of the code. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to proceed with the initiation of a code amendment. E. OTHER MATTERS OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is the time when any member of the public may bring a matter to the attention of the Commission that is within the scope of duties assigned to the Commission. The Ralph M. Brown Act limits the Planning Commission and staff's ability to respond to comments on non-agendized matters at the time such comments are made. Thus, your comments may be agendized for a future meeting or referred to staff. The Commission may discuss or ask questions for clarification, if desired, at this time. None F. COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS This is the time when any member of the Commission may bring a matter to the attention of the full Commission that is within the scope of duties assigned to the Commission. Any item that was considered during the public hearing portion is not appropriate for discussion in this section of the agenda. NO COMMISSION ACTION CAN BE TAKEN AT THIS TIME. If the Commission desires to discuss an issue raised by a resident or take an action, the Commission may vote to agendize the matter for the next meeting. The Commission may discuss or ask questions for clarification, if desired, at this time. Chairman Stewart commented on West Covina Day at the Fair. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 – October 13, 2009 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2009 MINUTES\10.13.09 minutes.doc CITY COUNCIL ACTION: This is an oral presentation of City Council matters and actions of the listed meeting which are in the Commission’s area of interest. None PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT: a. Project Status Report G. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Sotelo, seconded by Redholtz, to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. 0(2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.09-5332 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-02 RELATED TO TEMPORARY SIGNS WHEREAS, on June 9, 2009, the Planning Commission considered the initiation of a code amendment related to temporary signs in non-residential zones; and WHEREAS, the studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and in its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. The code currently standards for temporary signs, which were last revised in 1999. It is appropriate to review the types and standards of temporary signs allowed per given the changing nature of advertising and business practices. 2. The Sign Section of the Municipal Code includes temporary sign standards that specify where a temporary sign may be placed, the length of time the sign may remain, the size standards, and the type of permit needed. It is necessary to review the standards to determine if the current standards are appropriate. 3. The proposed action is considered to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proposed action consists of a code amendment, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, in conformance with Section 26-153(a)(3) of the West Covina Municipal Code, does hereby initiate an application for a Code Amendment related to temporary signs standards in the Signs section of the Municipal Code. I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of June, 2009 by the following vote. AYES: Redholtz, Sotelo, Carrico, Sykes, Stewart NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: DATE: June 9, 2009 Dave Stewart, Chairman Planning Commission J9ffAnderson, Secretary Planning Commission Z:\Resos\2009\09-5332 CA 09-02 (Initiate) Temporary Signs.doc Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2009 MINUTES\6.9.09 minutes.doc MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF WEST COVINA Tuesday, June 9, 2009 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Stewart in the West Covina Council Chambers. Commissioner Carrico led the Pledge of Allegiance and the Commission observed a moment of silence. ROLL CALL Present: Sotelo, Redholtz, Stewart, Sykes, Carrico Absent: None City Staff Present: Nichols, Lam, Anderson, Wong and de Zara APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting, May 12, 2009 – The minutes were approved as amended. A. OTHER MATTERS OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is the time when any member of the public may bring a matter to the attention of the Commission that is within the scope of duties assigned to the Commission. The Ralph M. Brown Act limits the Planning Commission and staff's ability to respond to comments on non-agendized matters at the time such comments are made. Thus, your comments may be agendized for a future meeting or referred to staff. The Commission may discuss or ask questions for clarification, if desired, at this time. None B. CONSENT CALENDAR This is the time for the public to comment on any item on the Consent Calendar. As Consent Calendar items are considered routine in nature, they are normally enacted in one motion. The Chairperson may remove a questioned Consent Calendar item for separate action. 1. FORTHCOMING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE Receive and file. Acting City Planner Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. He told the Commission that the only matter listed on the Consent Calendar was the list of Forthcoming items. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Sotelo, to approve the items listed. Motion carried 5-0. HEARING PROCEDURE: You are encouraged by this Commission to express your views on any matter set for public hearing. It is our procedure to first receive the report of the Planning staff, then to ask for public testimony; first from those in favor of the matter, followed by testimony from those in opposition to it, and, if there be opposition, to allow those in favor, rebuttal testimony only as to the points brought up in opposition. To testify on a matter, you need to simply come forward to the lectern at the appropriate time, give your name and address and make your statement. In addition, please sign in on the sheet provided at the podium so it will facilitate preparation of our minutes. Do not be concerned with your possible lack of experience in public hearings. We are interested in what you say, not your level Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 – June 9, 2009 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2009 MINUTES\6.9.09 minutes.doc of expertise as a public speaker. After a hearing has been closed, you may not further speak on the matter unless requested to do so by a member of the Commission. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-15 VARIANCE NO. 08-10 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Perry Stevens LOCATION: 2024 Barham Avenue REQUEST: The project consists of a request for a conditional use permit to allow a 1,770-square foot second-story addition to an existing 2,170-square foot (including a two-car garage), single-story home on a 5,049-square foot lot. A variance is also being requested to deviate from the required second-story side yard setback on the north side from 10 feet to 5 feet, 6 inches. The project is located in the “Planned Community Development No. 1” (PCD-1) Zone. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Fabiola Wong presented the staff report. During her presentation, Ms. Wong told the Commission that the applicant had reduced the size and mass of the home and complied with recommendations by the Design Review Subcommittee. She added that an additional condition of approval had been added to remove the wet bar from the recreational room. She recommended approval of the revised plan. PROPONENTS: Jorge Hernandez, architect representing the applicant, and Royall Brown spoke in favor of the application. Mr. Hernandez said that he had incorporated the recommendations by the Commission into the redesign of the addition. Mr. Brown encouraged the Commission to approve the variance, since the applicant had reduced the square footage and met the criteria for the granting of a variance. OPPONENTS: None Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. There was a short discussion by the Commission regarding the amended plans. Commissioner Carrico commented that the applicant had complied with suggestions by the Planning Commission, which resulted in a better design for the home. He expressed his support of the project. Commissioner Sykes concurred with Mr. Carrico’s comments and also expressed his intention to support the project. Commissioner Redholtz asked if public hearing notice on the matter had been given. Staff said that notice had been mailed to residents within a 300’ radius of the property. Commissioner Redholtz agreed with the comments of the other two Commissioners. He also added that he would support the project, especially since no residents had opposed the project. Commissioner Sotelo asked staff if the plans would be submitted to the Building Division for permits once they are approved. Staff said that the Planning Department would have another opportunity to review the plans during the plan check phase of the permit process. Commissioner Sotelo said that he would support the project. Chairman Stewart said that he would support the project because his concerns with the original plans had been addressed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 – June 9, 2009 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2009 MINUTES\6.9.09 minutes.doc Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Sotelo, to adopt findings as recommended by staff. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Sotelo, to waive further reading of the body of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 09-5328, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 08- 15. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Sotelo, to adopt findings as recommended by staff. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Sotelo, to waive further reading of the body of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 09-5329, approving Variance No. 08-10. Motion carried 5-0. Chairman Stewart stated that these actions are final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days. D. NON HEARING ITEMS (1)* APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 08-09 APPELLANT/ APPLICANT: Khachatur Agazaryan LOCATION: 400 North Azusa Avenue REQUEST: The applicant is appealing a decision of the hearing officer to revoke Administrative Review No. 08-09, which allowed a recycling center to operate at the site. The recycling center consists of two recycling bins in the rear parking area. John Lam, Deputy City Attorney, told the Commission that the public hearing for this matter was concluded on May 28, 2009 and the resolutions reflected the Commission’s findings. He recommended that the resolutions be adopted. Motion by Carrico, seconded by Sotelo, to waive further reading of the body of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 09-5330, revoking Administrative Review No. 08- 09, on appeal of Hearing Officer decision. Motion carried 5-0. (2)* AMENDMENT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 08-09 APPLICANT: Khachatur Agazaryan LOCATION: 400 North Azusa Avenue REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to amend the approval of Administrative Review No. 08-09. The request would revise the conditions of approval. Motion by Carrico, seconded by Redholtz, to waive further reading of the body of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 09-5331, denying an amendment to Administrative Review No. 08-09. Motion carried 5-0. There was a short discussion regarding the adoption of the resolutions and the beginning of the ten-day appeal period. *Previous public hearing items which were closed on May 28, 2009. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 – June 9, 2009 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2009 MINUTES\6.9.09 minutes.doc (3) STUDY SESSION CODE AMENDMENT INITIATION TEMPORARY SIGNS The proposed code amendment consists of certain amendments to chapter 26 of the West Covina Municipal Code related to regulating temporary signs within the City. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission initiate a code amendment regarding temporary signs and provide comment and direction as appropriate. Acting City Planner Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During his presentation, Mr. Anderson stated that Chairman Stewart had requested the temporary sign ordinance be placed on the agenda for discussion by the Commission. In addition, he told the Commission that the temporary sign ordinance had not been reviewed since 1999. Commissioner Redholtz asked staff questions regarding the enforcement of the temporary sign code. Staff informed the Commission that enforcement is usually due to a complaint, unless the sign presents a safety hazard or is in violation of the American Disability Act. Chairman Stewart said that he became concerned with the temporary sign ordinance when signs or banners are in place for a long time, or they appear too large. It was the consensus of the Commission to initiate a review of the temporary sign ordinance. Motion by Sotelo, seconded by Redholtz, to waive further reading of the body of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 09-5332, initiating a code amendment regarding regulations for temporary signs. (4) STUDY SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DESIGN A study session to discuss the history and authority of the Subcommittee for Design, whose function is to review single-family construction. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide comment and direction as appropriate. Acting City Planner Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During the presentation of the report, he spoke about the history of the Design Review Subcommittee, and explained that the Planning Commission had been concerned with the maintaining the integrity of existing neighborhoods. As a result of those concerns, the Planning Commission appointed a subcommittee to review architectural changes and make suggestions so that remodeled homes would be harmonious with the existing, surrounding neighborhood. Senior Planner Fabiola Wong presented a power point presentation on single-story and second-story additions. The power point presentation illustrated the recommendations made and adopted by the Design Review Subcommittee. Commissioner Carrico thanked staff for the presentation and said that it helped him understand the vision of the Subcommittee. Commissioner Sykes also said that the presentation was informative. Commissioners Sotelo and Redholtz offered their comments regarding their experiences on the Subcommittee, as well as the purpose and standards adopted by the Subcommittee. Royall Brown encouraged the Commission to continue to encourage property owners to use the suggestions of the Design Review Subcommittee to improve the appearance of their homes. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 – June 9, 2009 Z:\PLANCOM\MINUTES\2009 MINUTES\6.9.09 minutes.doc E. OTHER MATTERS OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is the time when any member of the public may bring a matter to the attention of the Commission that is within the scope of duties assigned to the Commission. The Ralph M. Brown Act limits the Planning Commission and staff's ability to respond to comments on non-agendized matters at the time such comments are made. Thus, your comments may be agendized for a future meeting or referred to staff. The Commission may discuss or ask questions for clarification, if desired, at this time. Barry Sutliff thanked the Commission for upholding the decision of the Hearing Officer to revoke Administrative Review No. 08-09. F. COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS This is the time when any member of the Commission may bring a matter to the attention of the full Commission that is within the scope of duties assigned to the Commission. Any item that was considered during the public hearing portion is not appropriate for discussion in this section of the agenda. NO COMMISSION ACTION CAN BE TAKEN AT THIS TIME. If the Commission desires to discuss an issue raised by a resident or take an action, the Commission may vote to agendize the matter for the next meeting. The Commission may discuss or ask questions for clarification, if desired, at this time. Commissioner Redholtz thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their help and support during his term as Chairman. He also commented on the Wells Fargo Bank opening on June 15, 2009. Commissioners Sotelo, Carrico, Sykes and Chairman Stewart expressed their thanks to Commissioner Redholtz for his service as Planning Commission Chairman. Commissioner Sykes said that he had attended the opening of the AT & T store near Bob’s Big Boy. Chairman Stewart said he would like to include landscaping plans for remodeled homes. Commissioner Carrico asked if there was any potential use for the vacant Circuit City building. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: This is an oral presentation of City Council matters and actions of the listed meeting which are in the Commission’s area of interest. July 7, 2009 regular meeting: Code Amendment No. 08-06, Mobile Food Caterers, is scheduled for public hearing. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT: a. Project Status Report Acting City Planner Jeff Anderson thanked Commissioner Redholtz for his service as Planning Commission Chairman. G. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Sotelo, seconded by Redholtz, to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. in memory of John Silva. Motion carried 5-0. City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager and City Council FROM: Jeff Anderson, Acting Planning Director SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-02 TEMPORARY SIGNS RECOMMENDATION: ITEM NO. 10 DATE April 5, 2011 The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council introduce the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 26 (ZONING) OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO TEMPORARY SIGNS DISCUSSION: On June 9, 2009, the Planning Commission initiated a code amendment related to temporary signs. The proposed code amendment is intended to update the sign ordinance to reflect new temporary signs that are available on the market and widely used throughout the City and to review existing standards. The current sign ordinance has been an effective tool for the regulation of the location, size and placement of signage with respect to permanent signs. In this regard, the goal of the sign ordinance is to provide a balance between the quality of life for residents and business owners' advertising needs. In considering revisions to the temporary sign standards, the Planning Commission endeavored to keep that balance in mind. Temporary signs regulated by the sign ordinance include signs such as banners and A-frame signs that are not permanently constructed signs. Currently, banners are allowed year-round which results in the display of banners that are in poor condition since the materials used are not durable enough to withstand the weather elements for a long period of time. Staff contacted two local sign companies (Sign-A-Rama and Custom Signs) to get an estimate on the life of a banner. Both companies indicated that banners have a lifespan of approximately six months. Staff surveyed seven nearby cities regarding their regulations related to temporary signs (Attachment 13). Regulations on banners ranged from 30 days (Azusa) to 120 days (Baldwin Park). Hand-held signs were prohibited in all of the cities surveyed and only a couple of cities allowed A-frame signs on private property. Wind blades and wavers, which are currently not allowed by the City's sign ordinance, are allowed in two of the cities surveyed. The City of Covina allows wind blades and wavers on private property when affixed to the ground up to 30 days per calendar year. The City of Duarte allows them for up to 40 days per calendar year when affixed to the ground as well. Both cities require a permit for these types of temporary promotional signs. Based on input from Planning, Community Enhancement, and the former Chamber of Commerce, the Planning Commission is recommending the following changes to the code. Air Dancers. Allow "air dancer balloons" in conjunction with a temporary use permit (2 events allowed for a maximum of 20 days in a calendar year for most properties). 2. Wind Blades. Allow "wind blades or wind flags" in conjunction with a temporary use permit (2 events allowed for a maximum of 20 days in a calendar year for most properties). ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C.0 Meeting\CC Staff Report Final.doc Code Amendment No. 09-02 Temporary Signs April 5, 2011 - Page 2 3. A-Frame Spinners. Allow "A-frame spinning signs" in the same manner that an A-frame sign is allowed under the current sign regulations (30 days in a calendar year). However, businesses would be allowed only one of the signs at a time. 4. Banners. Change the period of time a banner would be allowed to be displayed to a maximum of 90 days per calendar year. An individual banner could be displayed a maximum of 30 days at a time. The current code has no time limits for banners to be displayed. In addition, the code amendment proposes to delete the reference to only allowing the current banner standards until June 30, 1998. 5. Hand Held Signs. Currently, the code is ambiguous regarding where this type of sign is allowed. The City Attorney advised that the City has the authority to allow or prohibit hand- held signs in the public right-of-way or on public property. Due to freedom of speech rights, the City cannot discriminate on the content of the signs if allowed in the public right-of-way. Therefore, by allowing hand-held signs, the City may lose its ability to effectively regulate signage in the public right-of-way. Language has been added to allow hand-held signs on private property only. (No restrictions are currently in the Code on the frequency of this type of sign.) 6. Flagpoles and Flags. As proposed, flagpoles would be removed from the section of the code pertaining to temporary signs and be relocated to another section of the code, as flagpoles are permanent structures. The code allows flag poles up to a height of 50 feet. In addition, eliminate the provision to allow the American flag to be displayed by being attached flat against a building wall. Staff is not aware of any requests to display a flag in such a manner and the Planning Commission felt there were more appropriate ways to display the flag. 7. Wall Mounted Display Signs. The code amendment proposes to eliminate the allowance of wall mounted display frames which are allowed in lieu of window signs. This type of signage has not widely been used and does not allow for window signage when utilized and is therefore difficult to enforce. This code amendment focused on reviewing standards for temporary signs. No changes are proposed for the fees for temporary sign review. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission held three study sessions (October 13, 2009, May 11, 2010 and July 13, 2010) to analyze current regulations and potential revisions. The Chamber of Commerce and the Greater West Covina Business Association (GWC) were invited to attend each study session. Furthermore, staff met with the Chamber of Commerce on December 8, 2009 to follow up on the input provided during the first study session. The GWC was also invited to meet with staff but their Chief Executive Officer indicated that they would be fine with any changes made by the City in regards to temporary signs. Both organizations were in attendance and spoke in favor of the code amendment at the public hearing held by the Planning Commission on November 9, 2010. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the code amendment 5-0. ZACase Files\CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Sigms\C.0 Meeting\CC Staff Report Final.doc Code Amendment No. 09-02 Temporary Signs April 5. 2011 - Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT: It is not anticipated that any of the proposed amendments will result in any impact to the City. , •\ \ t - /----- - if/ . / Pre oared by: Fabiola Wong Rev' n (es/Approved by: Jeff Senior Planner Acting P Attachments: Attachment 1 — Draft Code Amendment Ordinance Attachment 2 — Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5393 , Attachment 3 — Planning Commission Staff Report, November 9, 2010 Attachment 4 — Planning Commission Minutes, November 9, 2010 Attachment 5 — Planning Commission Study Session, July 13, 2010 Attachment 6 — Table of Surveyed Cities, July 13, 2010 Attachment 7 — Table, July 13, 2010 Attachment 8 — Planning Commission Minutes, July 13, 2010 Attachment 9 — Planning Commission Study Session, May 11, 2010 Attachment 10 — Table, May 11, 2010 Attachment 11 — Planning Commission Minutes, May 11, 2010 Attachment 12 — Planning Commission Study Session, October 13, 2009 Attachment 13 — Planning Commission Minutes, October 13, 2009 Attachment 14 — Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-5332 Initiating Code Attachment 15 — Planning Commission Minutes, June 9, 2009 fiscal Director ZACase Files \CODE AMEND\2009\09-02 Temp Signs\C:C Meeting\CC Staff Report Final.doe