Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout8A ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO 10-936 HEDGE HEIGHTS OVER SIX FEET AND DEFINE HEDGESAGENDA �T,emUle ITEM Q.A. Cy MEMORANDUM Staff Report TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL DATE: AUGUST 3 2010 FROM: JOSE E. PULIDO, CITY MANAGER/ i e_Jj BY: JOSEPH (dl. LAMBERT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 10-936 A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW HEDGE HEIGHTS OVER SIX FEET TALL OUTSIDE OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND TO SPECIFICALLY DEFINE HEDGES SUMMARY On July 20, 2010, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider an Ordinance that would define hedges, and eliminate the hedge height requirement in the rear yard area of residential properties. The City Council introduced the draft Ordinance for first reading and at this time, the Ordinance is presented for second reading and adoption by the City Council. BACKGROUND On February 23, 2010 staff requested an interpretation from .he Planning Commission regarding hedge heights in residential zones. After the discussion. the Planning Commission directed staff to survey the hedge defrni6o,is and hedge height requirements of nearby cities. After that information was presented to the Planning Commission staff was directed to prepare a code amendment that would define a hedge, enforce hedge height within the front yard scmack and eliminate the hedge height requirement In the rear yard area of residenual properties. 2. On June 8, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance that would define hedges. and eliminate the hedge height requirement in the rear yard area of residential properties. 3. On July 20. 2010, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 10-936 and introduced the draft Ordinance for first reading. At this time, Ordinance No. 10-936 is presented for second reading and adoption by the City Council. City Council meeting of August 3, 2010 Hedge Height O,dirance Pace 2 DISCUSSION Proposed Amendments The attached Ordinance would result in the following changes to the Zoning Code, changes and new text are indicated in bold and underlined text, deletions are in strikeout: 1. SECTION 9109: DEFINITIONS HEDGE: Vegetation, shrubs and/or trees planted to create a phvsical and/or visual barrier. 2. SECTION 9316: WALL, FENCE OR HEDGES A wall, fence or -hedge or security gate not more than six feet (6') In height may be located and maintained on any part of an R zoned lot except those areas comprising the front yard In front yards; the maximum height of a wall fence ur hedge shall be limited to a maximum of thirty six inches (36") when view obscuring or a maximum of forty two inches (42") when non view obstructing No security gate, regardless of height, shall be permitted when said security gate blocks vehicular access to a multiple -family residential project which has or will have required guest parking. FISCAL IMPACT No Impact. RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and adopt Ordinance Number 10-936 by title only ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance No. 10-936 2. Draft Negative Declaration. Environmental Checklist Form and Discuss on of the Environmental Evaluation F01.4 -1i, W 411010[iW[i AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY AMENDING THE TEMPLE CITY ZONING CODE TO ALLOW HEDGE HEIGHTS OVER SIX FEET TALL OUTSIDE OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND TO SPECIFICALLY DEFINE HEDGES, TITLE 9 CHAPTER 1 ARTICi.F A, SECTION 9109 DEFINITIONS AND TITLE 9 CHAPTER . ARTiCLE K, SECTION 9316 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS SECTION 1. Based upon information presented in the City Ccunci: Staff Reports da:ec J-iy 20, 2010 and a Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 8. 2010, ane based uoo'� a Public rear ng before the Planning Commission on June 8. 2010, and a Public Hearing before the City Courcil on Ju y 20. 2010 to consider certain amendments to the Zoning Code. the City Councl nereoy an ends the Zoning Code of the City of Ten•ple City as described in Section 4 below based upon the fire ngs set oRii it Section 2 below and based upon the Environmental Assessment which is discussed in Sect-^ 3 cc: ow SECTION 2. The need for a Zoning Code amendment is based upon the following `ircings 1 That hedges in the rear yard area of residential properties can cont,ibute to aesthetic value of neignborhoods, while providing privacy and current'y the Zor, -g Code: limits hedge heights in rear yard areas: ano 2 This Code Amendment would update the existing text :o perr^:t necce reig,ts over six feet taxi outside of the front yard area and 3 This Code Amendment would also provide a definitior of nedges w',.cir is, curerttly lack rig in the Zoning Code SECTION 3. This prcgect shall not result it sign'f cant effects Lipo- :ne env rcnr ent and Negative Dec,aration has been preoareo and :s hereby adoptee; it accordance wh the State C FQA Guidelines The initial study as prepared indicates that there :s no potertial for adverse impact to tl,c: environment as it relates to all wild animals, birds plants, fsn, arrohib a^s arc: relaiea ecoloq ca' communities, including the haoitat upon which the wiid:ife depends for its continied via'pi i:y SECTION 4. The City Council hereby makes the following amendments in the Zor,rg Code Section 9109 (Title 9. Chapter 1. Article A, Definitions) aria Section 9316 (Tlt:e 9 Chapte, 1 Art cie K, Encroachments :n Yard Areas and Height Exceptions) of the Tamale City Municipal Code are 'rereey amended to reaa as follows TITLE 9 ARTICLE A. Introduction 9109 DEFINITIONS HEDGE Vegetation shrubs and/or trees planted to create a phvs,ca: arc/or visjni 'parr er Ordinance No. 10-936 Page 2 TITLE 9 CHAPTERI ARTICLE K Encroachments in Yard Areas and He,g'rt Exceptors 9316: WALL, FENCE OR HEDGES A wall, fence or hied or security gate not more than six feet (6') ^ he,gh: mry be orated arc maintained on any part of an R zoned lot except those areas comp,sirg :tic front yard In fror,: yards. the maximum height of a wall. fence or hedge shall be imaec to a max,m,im of th rty s x inches (36") when view obscuring or a maximum of forty two . iches I42') w'^o t ran v ew oostructing No security gate. regardless of height. sha, be por it:ea wre^ said security gate Nocks veh,cular access to a multiple -family residential protect wrid, has o, wi save ocu rod guest parking SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adopt.on o` ,,,s ord -a-co a -d ,o cs approval by the Mayor The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause hies O,d—arce, to oe p.,blisnec within fifteen (15) days after its passage in a newspaper of general circu:at.on a •c c.rcu axed wit'^ .i ire City in accordance with Government Code § 36933(a) or, to cause this Ordinance to be o,,bi shed in Ute manner required by law using the alternative summary and posting proced.,re a,,;nor,zed urge, Government Code § 36933(c) APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 3" day of August, 2010 MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk I, City C erK of the City of Temple City. do hereby certify that the fo,egoirg Ordinance, Ord - a-ce No 10-936 was .n.roouced at the regular meeting of the City Cowtci' of the City o` i e^ ple C ty "eld ai the 20" day of Jury, 2010 and was duly passed approved and adopted by sa c Co nci at t re r reg,i'a, meeting held on the 3`0 day of August, 2010 by the following vote AYES: Councdmember- NOES Counctlmember- ABSENT: Councdmember- ABSTAIN Counciimember- City Cleric CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Applicant: Type of Permit: NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DISCRETIONARY File No: Consideration of a Zoning Code Text Amendment to allow hedges over six feet tall outside of the front yard setback area in the R-1 zone, and to specifically define hedges. This Hearing will involve the possible modification of Title 9, Chapter 1, Article K, Section 9316. Description of the project: Consideration of a Zoning Code Text Amendment to allow hedges over six feet tall outside of the front yard setback area in the R-1 zone, and to specifically define hedges. This Hearing will involve the possible modification of Title 9, Chapter 1, Article K, Section 9316. The Community Development Manager of the City of TEMPLE CITY has reviewed the proposal for the above -captioned amendment, and on the basis of the Initial Study on file as a public document, it has been determined that this amendment will have no significant impact upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. DATED: May 13, 2010 --- CO NITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER CITY OF TEMPLE CITY Any person may file a protest to the Negative Declaration with the City Clerk prior to the issuance of the permit or approval of the project. The protest must be in writing and must state the environmental factors on which the protest is based. The protest shall be reviewed by the City Manager or his agent. If he finds that the protest is based on one or more significant environmental factors not previously considered, and which may have a substantial adverse effect on the environment, the permit shall be suspended and an EIR shall be processed. The decision of the reviewer shall be final. Copies of the Initial Study may be obtained for $$1.00 for the first page and $a.25 for each additional page. City of Temple City ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM PROJECT TITLE Consideration of a Zoning Code Text Amendment to allow hedges over six feet tall outside of the front yarc setback area in the R-1 zone, and to specifically define hedges This Hearing will involve the possible modification of Title 9, Chapter 1, Article K, Section 9316. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Temple City 9701 Las Tunas Drive Temple City, California 91780 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Joseph M. Lambert, Community Development Manager (626)285-2171 PROJECT LOCATION Citywide in Residential Zones PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS City of Temple City 9701 Las Tunas Drive Temple City, California 91780 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Various, including Residential Low Density, Residential Medium Density, and Resident a. H.gh Density ZONING R-1 R-2, and R-3 Zones DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary) Consideration of a Zoning Code Text Amendment to allow hedges over six feet tai outside of ;he front yarc setback area in the R-1 zone, and to specifically define hedges This Hearing wd; invo ve the poss:b e modrficat on of Title 9. Chapter 1, Article K, Section 9316 OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED) N/A City of Temple City ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Potenia,ly Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Ir -.pact Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal a Conflict with general plan designation or ❑ ❑ V ❑ zoning V b. Conflict with applicable environmental ❑ ❑ ❑ plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c Affect agricultural resources or operations ❑ ❑ L] V (e.g impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? d. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement ❑ ❑ �/ of an established community (including a low income or minority community? 2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the proposal a Cumulatively exceed official regional or ❑ ❑ ❑ local population projects? b Induce substantial growth in an area either ❑ ❑ ❑ �X directly or indirectly (e.g through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure? C. Displace existing housing, especially ❑ i ] / Y affordable housing? 3. GEOPHYSICAL, Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving. a Seismicity fault rupture? ❑ [ _' / 1�/ b Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? ❑ ❑ Jd� c. Seismicity seiche or tsunami? ❑ _ Ltd d. Landslides or mudslides? ❑ ❑ _' e. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable ❑ y soil conditions from excavation. grading or fill? f Subsidence of the land? ❑ ❑ ❑ )G g Expansive soils? ❑ ❑ J h. Unique geologic or physical features? 11 ❑ [] GO►ll_►, d ll'_ Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than. Significant Unless Signitica^'. No Impact Mitigated impact Impact 4 WATER. Would the proposal result: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage ❑ ❑ ❑i V patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b. Exposure of people or property to water ❑ ❑ L_ related hazards such as flooding? c. Discharge into surface waters or other ❑ y� alterations of surface water quality (e.g, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? J, Changes in the amount of surface water in ❑ ❑ _ v any water body? e. Changes in currents or the course or ❑ ❑, L / V direction of water movements? f Changes in the quantity of ground either ❑ ❑ through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interceptions of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g Altered direction or rate of flow of ❑ ❑ ❑, groundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ V/ L Storm water system discharges from area El [_ _Q for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing). waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage delivery or loading docks, or other outdoor work area? j. A significantly environmentally harmful ❑ ! ] ul increase in the flow rate or volume of storm water runoff? k. A significantly environmentally harmful ❑ ❑ ❑ l / �Y increase in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? I Storm water discharges that would ❑ ❑ significantly impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g riparian corridors, wetlands, etc )? m. Harm to the biological integrity of drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ J systems and water bodies? ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pote'ltially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ �r to an existing or projected air quality Id. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. violation? L }� Id. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑ VI c. Alter air movement, moisture. or ❑ ❑ ❑ incompatible uses (e g. farm equipment) ? temperature, or cause any change in ❑ climate? Inadequate emergency access or access to ❑ ❑ d. Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ __ nearby uses? 6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑' �' Id. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. ❑ L }� b Locally designated species (e g heritage sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or ❑ r d trees) v incompatible uses (e g. farm equipment) ? c Locally designated natural communities ❑ c. Inadequate emergency access or access to ❑ ❑ `. ❑ ❑ nearby uses? vernal pool) ? d Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- ❑ ❑ L_J site? / �/ e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or ❑ ❑ r_, bicyclists? f. Conflicts with adooted policies supporting ❑ L..J alternative transportation (e.g bus turnouts, bicycle racks) v g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ 7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result In impacts to a Endangered, threatened or rare species or ❑ ❑ _ Sd their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects. animals, and birds)? b Locally designated species (e g heritage ❑ ❑ r d trees) v V c Locally designated natural communities ❑ (e g. oak forest, costal habitat, etc ) ? d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and ❑ ❑ y/ vernal pool) ? e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ 'V ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS S ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal a. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigates Imoact Impact S ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal a. Conflict with adopted energy conservational ❑ a. Increases in existing noise levels? E]❑ J plans? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ Id. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful ❑ ❑ ❑ V and inefficient manner? the following areas: 9 HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve ❑ :_.i b. Police protection? ❑ a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of ❑ ❑ is / v d. Maintenance of public facilities, including hazardous substances (including, but not ❑ roads? imited to: oil. pesticides, chemicals or e Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ _^ radiation)? b. Possible interference with an emergency ❑ ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c. The creation of any health hazard or ❑ ❑ V potential health hazard? / d Exposure of people to existing sources of ❑ potential health hazards? e Increased fire hazard areas in areas with ❑ flammable brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in. a. Increases in existing noise levels? E]❑ J / F b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ 11 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon. or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a Fire protection? ❑ ❑ :_.i b. Police protection? ❑ ❑ F c. Schools? ❑ ❑ JG d. Maintenance of public facilities, including ❑ ❑ roads? e Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ _^ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Significant Impact 12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a Power or natural gas? ❑ b. Communications systems? ❑ c Local or regional water treatment or distribution ❑ facilities? J, Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ e. Storm water drainage? ❑ f Solid waste disposal? ❑ 13 AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c. Create light or glare? 14 CULTURAL RESOUCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? b. Disturb archaeological resources? c. Affect historical resources? c. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15 RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ � SC ❑ ❑ D t� ❑ ❑ dG ❑ ❑ -1 Isr ❑ ❑ ❑/ Polentlaily Significant Less Than Unless Significant No Mitigated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ L ❑ J L✓/ ❑ ❑�/ ❑ [, 11G✓ ❑ � SC ❑ ❑ D t� ❑ ❑ dG ❑ ❑ -1 Isr ❑ ❑ ❑/ Pcte,d;aay Potentially Sigrificant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact impact 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the protect have the potential to degrade ❑ `' the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the rang of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve ❑ short-term; to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c. Does the project have Impacts that are ❑ ❑ `-i Individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the Incremental effects of a protect are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). J. Does the project have environmental effects ❑ ❑ �/ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. either directly or indirectly? ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated ' as indicated by the checkl'st on ,he preceding pages ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Hazards ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Noise ❑ Geophysical ❑ Mandatory Findings of Sign'oance ❑ Water ❑ Public Services ❑ Air Quality ❑ Utilit,es and Service Systems ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources ❑ Recreation DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this evaluation [� I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on ;he errvirormert ane a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will oe prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment mere wu: not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on air attached sneer nave been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment a, -,a ar ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect (s) on the environment d.,t at :east one effect. 1) has been adequately and analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to aop caoie legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as descr end on attached sneets if the effect is a "potent ally significant impact" or "potentially significant un ess m tigated An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature lee— Joseph M. L Community Development Manager Date DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Pace 1 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1A. LAND USE AND PLANNING: The proposed Code Amendment would result in amending the Municipal Code regulations regarding hedge heights in residential zones. The Municipal Code currently states that hedges outside the front yard setback area cannot exceed six feet in height If the Code is amended, the allowable hedge heights could then exceed six feet in height in certain areas of residential lots. However, this will not create any inconsistencies with the General Plan.