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.