Agenda packet — South Pasadena City Council, September 18, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

City of South Pasadena Page 1

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING

CLOSED SESSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2023
6:00 P.M.

AMEDEE O. “DICK” RICHARDS JR. COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1424 MISSION STREET, SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030

NOTICE ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & ACCESSIBILITY
The South Pasadena City Council Meeting will be conducted in-person from the Amedee O. “Dick” Richards, Jr. Council Chambers, located at 1424 Mission Street, South Pasadena, CA 91030 and the teleconference location. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 Government Code Section 54953, subdivision (e)(3), the City Council may conduct its meetings remotely and may be held via video conference.

Public Comment regarding items on the Closed Session Meeting agenda will be taken at the beginning of the meeting. The public will be released from the meeting so that the City Council may convene Closed Session discussion of items allowed under the Government Code. Any reportable action taken in Closed Session will be reported by the City Attorney during the next Open Session meeting. A separate Zoom link will be provided for the Open Session for the public to attend.

Public participation may be made as follows:
• In-Person – Council Chambers, 1424 Mission Street, South Pasadena, CA 91030 and the teleconference location.
• Live Broadcast via the City website –
http://www.spectrumstream.com/streaming/south_pasadena/live.cfm • Via Zoom – Meeting ID: 226 442 7248
• Written Public Comment – written comment must be submitted by 12:00 p.m. the day of the meeting by emailing to [email protected]. • Via Phone – +1-669-900-6833 and entering the Zoom Meeting ID listed above.

Meeting may be viewed at:

1. Go to the Zoom website, https://zoom.us/join and enter the Zoom Meeting information; or

2. Click on the following unique Zoom meeting link:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/2264427248?pwd=aEFuSGszQ2I5WjJkemloTms0RTlVUT09; or

3. By calling: +1-669-900-6833 and entering the Zoom Meeting ID listed above; and viewing the meeting via http://www.spectrumstream.com/streaming/south_pasadena/live.cfm CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jon Primuth
ROLL CALL: Mayor Jon Primuth
Mayor Pro Tem Evelyn G. Zneimer
Councilmember Jack Donovan
Councilmember Michael A. Cacciotti
Councilmember Janet Braun
South Pasadena City Council September 18, 2023

Page 2 ends

CLOSED SESSION AGENDA ITEMS
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION-SIGNIFICANT

EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION
(Government Code Section 54945.9(d)(2))
Number of Potential Cases: 2

CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I declare under penalty of perjury that I posted this notice of agenda for the meeting to be held on September 18, 2023, on the bulletin board in the courtyard of City Hall located at 1414 Mission Street, South Pasadena, CA 91030, and on the City website as required by law, on the date listed below. 09/14/2023 /S/
Date Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk

PUBLIC COMMENT
City of South Pasadena Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jon Primuth
ROLL CALL: Mayor Jon Primuth
Mayor Pro Tem Evelyn G. Zneimer
Councilmember Jack Donovan
Councilmember Michael A. Cacciotti
Councilmember Janet Braun
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tem Evelyn G. Zneimer

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2023, AT 6:30 P.M.

AMEDEE O. “DICK” RICHARDS JR. COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1424 MISSION STREET, SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030
South Pasadena City Council Statement of Civility
As your elected governing board, we will treat each other, members of the public, and City employees with patience, civility, and courtesy as a model of the same behavior we wish to reflect in South Pasadena for the conduct of all City business and community participation. The decisions made tonight will be for the benefit of the South Pasadena community and not for personal gain.

Public participation may be made as follows:
• In Person – Council Chambers, 1424 Mission Street, South Pasadena, CA 91030 • Live Broadcast via the City website –
http://www.spectrumstream.com/streaming/south_pasadena/live.cfm • Via Zoom – Webinar ID: 825 9999 2830
• Written Public Comment – written comment must be submitted by 12:00 p.m. the day of the meeting by emailing to [email protected]. • Via Phone – +1-669-900-6833 and entering the Zoom Meeting ID listed above.

Meeting may be viewed at:

1. Go to the Zoom website, https://zoom.us/join and enter the Zoom Meeting information; or

2. Click on the following unique Zoom meeting link:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82599992830 or

Page 2 ends

PUBLIC COMMENT GUIDELINES
The City Council welcomes public input. Members of the public may comment on a non-agenda subject under the jurisdiction of the City Council or on an agenda item. Members of the public will have three minutes to address the City Council, however, the Mayor and City Council may adjust the time allotted, as needed.

Public Comments received in writing will not be read aloud at the meeting, but will be part of the meeting record. Written public comments will be uploaded to the City website for public viewing under Additional Documents. When submitting a public comment, please make sure to include the following:
1) Name (optional), and
2) Agenda item you are submitting public comment on.
3) Submit by no later than 12:00 p.m., on the day of the City Council meeting. Correspondence received after this time will be distributed the following business day.

PLEASE NOTE: The Mayor may exercise the Chair's discretion, subject to the approval of the majority of the City Council, to adjust public comment time limit to less than three minutes, as needed.

Pursuant to State law, the City Council may not discuss or take action on issues not on the meeting agenda, except that members of the City Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising public testimony rights (Government Code Section 54954.2).

Staff may be asked to follow up on such items.

PUBLIC COMMENT

1. PUBLIC COMMENT
Public Comment will be limited to three minutes per speaker for the agendized items only.

PUBLIC HEARING

2. CONSIDERATION OF A NEW GENERAL PLAN, ASSOCIATED DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC

PLAN, AND PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE

PROJECT

RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE 2023 GENERAL PLAN

AND THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT

A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, AND EXHIBIT D, AND RESCIND THE

MISSION STREET SPECIFIC PLAN

ORDINANCE

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING THE MISSION
STREET SPECIFIC PLAN AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 2035
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council open the Public Hearing, receive public testimony on the project, and continue the Public Hearing to September 27, 2023, at which time the Council would consider:

Special Meeting Agenda September 18, 2023

Page 3 ends

1. Adopting a Resolution to certify and adopt the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) prepared for the project, making required findings and adopting a statement of overriding considerations;

2. Adopting a Resolution to adopt the General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) Update, inclusive of Planning Commission direction and errata revisions to both the General Plan and DTSP; and

3. Introducing an Ordinance to rescind the Mission Street Specific Plan upon the effective date of the DTSP.

3. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SOUTH PASADENA MUNICIPAL CODE (SPMC) CHAPTER 36 (ZONING) AND ZONING MAP RELATED TO INCREASED DENSITY BY REZONING THE

EXISTING FOCUSED AREA OVERLAY ZONE TO MIXED-USE OVERLAY ZONE AND

INCREASE DENSITY IN THE CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN AND THE 2021-2029 (6TH CYCLE) HOUSING

ELEMENT

ORDINANCE

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 36
(ZONING) OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH

PASADENA RELATED TO INCREASED DENSITY INCLUDING

REZONING THE EXISTING FOCUSED AREA OVERLAY ZONE TO

MIXED-USE OVERLAY ZONE AND INCREASING DENSITY IN THE

RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, AND AMENDING THE

ZONING MAP IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE UPDATED GENERAL
PLAN AND THE 2021-2029 (6TH CYCLE) HOUSING ELEMENT
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive public testimony on the project, and continue the Public Hearing to September 27, 2023, at which time the Council would consider introducing an Ordinance to:

1. Amend certain South Pasadena Municipal Code Sections pertaining to rezoning of properties consistent with the General Plan update and the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element which will do the following:
a. Add Section 36.230.050 (Mixed-Use Overlay Development Standards) for the newly established Mixed-Use Overlay District;
b. Amend Section 36.250.340 (Focus Area Overlay District), to eliminate the Focus Overlay District and replace it with the newly established Mixed-Use Overlay; c. Increase density in the RM, RH, and Mixed-Use Overlay Districts in compliance with the Housing Element Programs; and
d. Amend other Code Sections relating to ancillary changes to the SPMC regarding reference to the new Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP), adoption of the new Zoning Map, other and minor changes to the Residential and Commercial zoning district standards in relation to the rezoning.

2. Amend the Zoning Map to eliminate the Focus Area Overlay zone and the Mission Street Specific Plan boundary, and replace them with the Mixed-Use Overlay zone and the Downtown Specific Plan boundary, respectively.

4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SOUTH PASADENA MUNICIPAL CODE (SPMC) CHAPTER 36 (ZONING) PERTAINING TO APPLICABLE PROGRAMS IN THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT (120-DAY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS)

ORDINANCE
Special Meeting Agenda September 18, 2023

Page 4 ends

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DIVISION 36.370
(AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES) OF ARTICLE 3 (SITE

PLANNING AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) OF
CHAPTER 36 (ZONING) OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF

SOUTH PASADENA TO REVISE REGULATIONS TO CONFORM

TO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW (CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65915)

ORDINANCE

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 36
ARTICLE 2 DIVISION 36.22 AND CHAPTER 36 ARTICLE 3
DIVISION 36.350 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH

PASADENA RELATING TO EMPLOYEE HOUSING

ORDINANCE

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DIVISION 36.375

OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA CODE

RELATING TO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council open a Public Hearing, receive public testimony on the project, and continue the Public Hearing to September 27, 2023, at which time the Council would consider introducing:

1. An Ordinance amending Division 36.370 (Affordable Housing Incentives) of Article 3 (Site Planning and General Development Standards) of Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the City Code of the City of South Pasadena to revise regulations to conform to State Density Bonus law (California Government Code Section 65915);

2. An Ordinance amending Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the City of South Pasadena Municipal Code including Division 36.220 (Residential Zoning Districts) of Article 2 (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zone-Specific Standards); Division 36.350 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) of Article 3 (Site Planning and General Development Standards); and Division 36.700 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) of Article 7 (Definitions/Glossary), relating to Employee Housing; and

3. An Ordinance amending Division 36.375 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements) of Article 3 (Site Planning and General Development Standards) of Chapter 36 (Zoning) the City Code of the City of South Pasadena relating to Inclusionary Housing requirements.

ACTION/DISCUSSION

5. APPROVE FUND ALLOCATION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF THE FIRST

CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH RANGWALA ASSOCIATES TO COMPLETE THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENTS IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TOEXCEED $26,200 Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Allocate and appropriate $26,200 from General Fund Account 101-0000-0000-3200-000 to Community Development Department Professional Services Account Number 101-7010- 7011-8170-000; and
Special Meeting Agenda September 18, 2023

Page 5 ends

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Rangwala Associates Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for the General Plan Update and Downtown Specific Plan to finalize documents in the amount of $26,200 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $177,100.

ADJOURNMENT

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

FUTURE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

PUBLIC ACCESS TO AGENDA DOCUMENTS AND BROADCASTING OF MEETINGS City Council meeting agenda packets, any agenda related documents, and additional documents are available online for public viewing on the City’s website:
www.southpasadenaca.gov/CityCouncilMeetings2023
Regular meetings are live streamed via the internet at:
http://www.spectrumstream.com/streaming/south_pasadena/live.cfm

AGENDA NOTIFICATION SUBSCRIPTION
If you wish to receive an agenda email notification please contact the City Clerk’s Division via email at [email protected] or call (626) 403-7230.

ACCOMMODATIONS
The City of South Pasadena wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. If special assistance is needed to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Division at (626) 403-7230 or [email protected]. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).

October 04, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting 7:00 P.M.

October 14, 2023 Strategic Plan Study Session (Youth House) 9:00 A.M.

Ml
2 2 - 1
DATE:

FROM:

City Council
Agenda Report
September 18, 2023
Armine Chaparyan, City Manager
ITEM NO.

PREPARED BY: Angelica Frausto-Lupo, Community Development Director Alison Becker, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director Ben Jarvis, AICP, Interim Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration of a new General Plan, Associated Downtown Specific Plan, and Program Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for the Project.

Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council open the Public Hearing, receive public testimony on the project, and continue the Public Hearing to September 27, 2023, at which time the Council would consider:

1. Adopting a Resolution to certify and adopt the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) prepared for the project, making required findings and adopting a statement of overriding considerations;

2. Adopting a Resolution to adopt the General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) Update, inclusive of Planning Commission direction and errata revisions to both the General Plan and DTSP; and

3. Introducing an Ordinance to rescind the Mission Street Specific Plan upon the effective date of the DTSP.

Executive Summary
The City is updating the General Plan to be consistent with the 6th Cycle Housing Element that was adopted by the City Council on May 30, 2023. This project also includes adopting a new Downtown Specific Plan to replace the existing Mission Street Specific Plan. A PEIR has been prepared for the project and will need to be certified and adopted in conjunction with approving the project.

Background
Sections 65300 et. seq. of the California Government Code requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of land within its jurisdiction and sphere of influence. The City of South Pasadena (City) last updated its General Plan in 1998, and the Housing Element was adopted on May 30, 2023. The existing Mission Street Specific Plan (MSSP) was adopted in 1996 as a companion document to the 1998 General Plan and was tailored to the particular needs of a specific area of the City (Mission Street). The area covered by the MSSP is now PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 2 of 18 ends

proposed to be expanded to include a segment of Fair Oaks Avenue. To better reflect the larger downtown area covered by the specific plan, the MSSP is proposed to be renamed the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). The General Plan and DTSP Adoption (Project) presents an opportunity to re-evaluate the City’s values and community vision, address broader issues, and respond to the changing economic, environmental, legal, and social settings. The Project would also implement the housing programs included in the recently adopted Housing Element.

The recently adopted 2021–2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element is one of the Statemandated elements required in a General Plan. The Housing Element identifies the City’s housing conditions, needs, and opportunities; and establishes policies and actions (programs) that are the foundation of the City’s housing strategy. Unlike other General Plan elements, State law requires each municipality to update its Housing Element on a prescribed schedule, most commonly, every eight years. The 6th Cycle Housing Element process commenced in the middle of the General Plan/DTSP Update process, which began in 2014, substantially impacting the timeline and focus of the project. The COVID19 pandemic also complicated the update process, particularly in terms of public meetings and outreach.

The comprehensive General Plan/DTSP Update is being undertaken by the City to strengthen its commitment to protecting the characteristics that make South Pasadena a desirable place to live, in the context of the constraints associated with significant changes in state law, particularly with respect to housing. The proposed General Plan and DTSP reflect an understanding of the community’s current goals, address continued growth pressures in the San Gabriel Valley and the demand for more diverse mobility and housing choices, and respond to evolving regional and environmental issues. The General Plan Update and DTSP serve as the City’s guiding documents, providing the basis and policy framework for decision-makers. These documents provide direction regarding the physical development, resource conservation, and character of the City, and establish a realistic, non-residential (commercial) development capacity for the City.

The 2021–2029 Housing Element serves as the policy guide for decision-making regarding residential development and demonstrates how the City intends to comply with State housing legislation and regional requirements. As noted above, the Housing Element was adopted on May 30, 2023, in conjunction with an Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65759. The proposed General Plan Update and DTSP are consistent with the adopted Housing Element.

Initial General Plan Update: 2014-2018
During strategic planning sessions in 2014 and 2015, the City Council identified the need to update the General Plan and the Mission Street Specific Plan and directed staff to commence the update process. On November 16, 2016, the City Council approved a contract with Rangwala Associates to update the City’s General Plan and Mission Street Specific Plan. The Council directed staff to work with Rangwala Associates to prepare a Public Engagement Program as well as an Environmental Impact Report for the project.

The public engagement process began on January 25, 2017, with a Joint City 2 - 2
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 3 of 18 ends

Council/Planning Commission meeting. During that meeting, staff were directed to expand the Mission Street Specific Plan boundaries to include Fair Oaks Avenue. Focus group meetings were held from February 2017 through April 2017, culminating in a charrette that was held during in April 2017. Focus groups reconvened after the charrette, and met through October 2017, developing policies and actions that would implement the community vision that was identified in the charrette and earlier focus group meetings.

On November 8, 2017, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the Environmental Impact Report phase of the project, with the intent to release the draft EIR in summer 2018 and to formally adopt the EIR and updated General Plan and DTSP later that year.

Based on the preliminary analysis, the proposed General Plan contemplated 500 additional residential units and 430,000 square-feet (SF) of new non-residential (commercial) space. Eventually, the General Plan would propose 589 additional units, and that number was used in the original environmental analysis and project assumptions in 2018/2019.

The majority of the work and community outreach that crafted the Draft General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) was completed in the 2017-2018 timeframe. The documents reflect the community’s vision and goals that were identified at that time. The project’s consultant, Rangwala Associates, conducted extensive public outreach, including stakeholder interviews, lectures, community surveys, and a charrette. This outreach was necessary to ensure the General Plan and DTSP reflected the community’s vision and priorities. The community’s comments were incorporated into the both the General Plan and DTSP documents, with the consensus being that future growth should be focused in walkable areas near public transportation thereby minimizing impacts on the City’s established, single-family neighborhoods.

Due to circumstances beyond the control of the consultant (the 2021-2029 Housing Element adoption process), Rangwala Associates transitioned off the project in 2019, and PlaceWorks, the new project consultant, assumed responsibility to finalize the General Plan and DTSP documents. Since PlaceWorks had been selected to complete the Housing Element, it made sense for a single consultant to coordinate final touches on the General Plan and DTSP documents to ensure they were internally consistent and complied with applicable state law. PlaceWorks remained the primary consultant until fall 2022. In spring 2023, Rangwala Associates again took over as the main project consultant for the proposed General Plan Update and DTSP project. 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element
As the General Plan work effort progressed, the City commenced the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element adoption process. The initial General Plan contemplated 589 housing units; however, when the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers were released in 2019, the City was required to plan for 2,067 units, a substantial increase. The Housing Element is the only element in the General Plan that requires approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Given the increased number of units the City was required to plan for under its RHNA obligation, the City paused the General Plan Update/DTSP project. Given the difference 2 - 3
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 4 of 18 ends

in the number of planned units (589 for the initial General Plan versus the 2,067 units required under the RHNA), it was prudent to pause the General Plan/DTSP process until the Housing Element was adopted.

After much work, and partly in response to Housing Element litigation, on May 17, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the Housing Element, the Initial Study and Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the project pursuant to Government Code Section 65759, public testimony, and other documentation, and adopted a resolution recommending the City Council adopt the EA prepared for the project and approve the Housing Element. On May 16, 2023, the City received a letter from HCD stating the revised 2021-2029 Housing Element dated May 5, 2023, was found to meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element law. With the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the determination by HCD that the Housing Element could be approved, on May 30, 2023, in a unanimous vote, the City Council adopted the Housing Element.

The Housing Element and its associated programs would accommodate a maximum potential of 2,775 units and 430,000 SF of non-residential (commercial) space. The additional number of units reflects a buffer of 708 units above the City’s RHNA obligation.

This buffer was required by HCD and provides additional housing capacity in the event some of the housing sites or programs do not produce the anticipated number of units.

The General Plan, of which the Housing Element is one component, must be internally consistent, thus other elements of the General Plan must be revised to reflect the revised population and housing goals listed in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Without large tracts of undeveloped land to work with, the City had to find a way to absorb the projected growth within its current built environment. Some growth could be accommodated in established neighborhoods through Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or other State legislation that allows for additional by-right units on single-family lots (such as Senate Bill 9 and Senate Bill 10), but even so, the City had to find ways to increase density in developed areas, preferably in commercial corridors located near high quality public transportation.

Litigation and Accelerated Timelines
In April 2022, the City was the subject of a lawsuit filed by Californians for Home Ownership, Inc. The lawsuit alleged the City was in violation of State law because the City had not adopted its 2021-2029 Housing Element by the State’s statutory deadline of October 15, 2021. In August 2022, a Court Order, also known as a Stipulated Judgement, was issued requiring the City to take certain actions within certain timeframes in order to bring the Housing Element into compliance per Section 65754 of the Government Code. 2 - 4
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 5 of 18 ends

As part of the Court Order and the Housing Element adoption process, environmental documentation pursuant to Government Code Section 65759(a) et. Seq. (which is separate from the CEQA process), was required. In keeping with Government Code Section 65759(a), an Initial Study and Environmental Assessment (EA) were prepared.

The City was compelled to comply with the Court Order, requiring the City to approve the Housing Element by May 31, 2023. The City Council’s adoption of the 2012-2029 Housing Element on May 30, 2023, was consistent with this legal deadline.

The City now has an approved Housing Element, but must still adopt an updated General Plan and DTSP, along with Zoning Text Amendments that implement several programs identified in the Housing Element. The Court Order and applicable State law provides 120 days from approval of the Housing Element to adopt those documents and zoning amendments. The City is working to meet this mandated deadline, and intends to adopt the new General Plan, DTSP, and Zoning Ordinance no later than September 27, 2023.

Upon adoption of the new General Plan, DTSP, and Zoning Ordinance, the City would be in compliance with State law and the Court Order.

Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission considered this item at its meetings on August 8 and August 21, 2023. At the August 8th meeting, after receiving public testimony and presentations from staff and the consultants, the Planning Commission discussed the matter, asked questions, and created an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Commissioners Lesak and Swanborn to further analyze development requirements in the DTSP. The Planning Commission then continued the Public Hearing to August 21st, with direction for staff to prepare resolutions recommending the City Council certify the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project, approving the project and adopting the new General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. An additional special meeting was held on August 23, 2023, to receive feedback from the Ad Hoc Committee on the related zoning text and map amendments discussed in a separate staff report. Copies of the Ad Hoc report, along with written public comments and City responses, are attached for the Council’s information.

City Council Study Session
On August 29, 2023, the City Council conducted a Study Session on this topic. The Council received a presentation from the consultant on the project, Rangwala & Associates, along with a CEQA presentation from Psomas, the project’s environmental consultant. Staff also presented the proposed Zoning Text Amendments that will be considered after the PEIR is certified and the General Plan is adopted. In addition to the presentations, residents addressed the Council during the public comment portion of the meeting and several written comments were received. The written comments are attached to this staff report, along with the City’s responses. As the meeting was a Study Session, no action was taken on the item.
2 - 5
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 6 of 18 ends

Analysis
The General Plan serves as the City’s guiding document and constitution. No land use or policy decisions can be adopted that are not consistent with the General Plan. The proposed General Plan has nine chapters that seek to implement the community’s vision for South Pasadena: 1) Our Natural Community, 2) Our Prosperous Community, 3) Our Well Planned Community, 4) Our Accessible Community, 5) Our Resilient Community, 6) Our Healthy Community, 7) Our Safe Community, 8) Our Active Community, and 9) Our Creative Community. These nine chapters contain goals, policies, and actions that provide guidance for the City’s on-going operations and decision making. The General Plan, DTSP, and the Housing Element all work together to achieve the following objectives:

1. Provide sufficient capacity for housing development in compliance with State policy mandates. Address the shortage of housing for lower-income households and promote an inclusive residential environment that welcomes all people into the community.

2. Preserve natural areas, enhance parks and open spaces to provide enriching recreational opportunities and ensure access to those spaces for people of all ages and abilities.

3. Attract and retain high value, high-wage jobs within the creative sector, diversify the local economy, promote and support local businesses, increase local tax base to help fund vital public services.

4. Direct new growth to the downtown area along Mission Street and Fair Oaks Avenue, as well as opportunity sites such as the Ostrich Farm District, while ensuring the continued character of existing residential areas.

5. Develop clear and precise standards that offer predictable outcomes and processes.

6. Encourage pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development, while providing new and enhancing existing public spaces and gathering places, creating vibrant cultural hubs that weave creative expression into everyday life.

7. Provide safe access for all street users—pedestrians, cyclists, public transit users, and motorists—of all ages and abilities. Support an integrated multi-modal network and efficiently manage parking to support wider community goals.

8. Increase individual, institutional, and business capacity to survive and adapt to any chronic stress or acute shocks and be able to recover and thrive.

9. Create environments that encourage safe and healthy lifestyles and maximize the opportunities for physical activity. Design the public and semi-public realm to foster social interaction and develop good programming to draw people out of their homes and into the community.

10.Create a vibrant cultural center by weaving creative expressions into everyday life. 2 - 6
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 7 of 18 ends

The General Plan Update seeks to preserve the City’s existing, distinctive neighborhoods, directing growth to specific areas, while providing enhanced housing opportunities citywide. The City currently has a population of 25,580, with 11,156 dwelling units (California Department of Finance, 2022). Under the proposed General Plan, along with the DTSP and Housing Element programs, the City would potentially add up to 6,882 new residents (32,462 total residents, 27% more than the existing population) and would add up to 2,775 new dwelling units for a total of 13,931 units, an increase of 25%. Commercial (retail) space would increase from 866,000 SF to 996,000 SF (a gain of 130,000 SF or 15%), and office space would increase by 300,000 SF (a 77% increase) from 390,000 SF to 690,000 SF. Table 1 provides an overview of the development capacity for the focus areas:

Table 1 City of South Pasadena Development Capacity (2040) Size
(acres)
Residential
(DUs)
Non-Residential (SF)
Commercial Office
Focus Areas
Corridors (within the Downtown Specific Plan Area)
Fair Oaks Avenue 80 880 75,000 100,000
Mission Street 350 25,000 25,000
Districts
Ostrich Farm 13.4 490 5,000 100,000
Neighborhood Centers
Huntington Drive & Garfield Avenue 4.5 140 10,000 50,000 Huntington Drive & Fletcher Avenue 1.6 0 5,000 0
Huntington Drive & Fremont Avenue 7.4 60 10,000 25,000
Neighborhoods (Throughout Remainder of the City)
High Density 455 0 0
Medium Density 350 0 0
Low Density 40 0 0
Very Low Density 10 0 0
130,000 300,000
Totals: 2,775 430,000
Source: Table 2-3 from the PEIR (page 2-23)
General Plan Land Use Summary
The City’s RHNA requirement was 2,067 units; however, as part of the Housing Element approval process, HCD required an additional buffer to ensure the required number of RHNA housing units could be accommodated. Therefore, the City is required to find capacity for 2,775 additional housing units. The proposed General Plan/DTSP Update would accommodate these units, directing development into urban corridors along major arterials, including the Downtown Specific Plan. Established single-family neighborhoods would be preserved to the greatest extent possible. The updated General Plan and DTSP promote walkable, livable communities, where residents would not need to rely on automobile use for their daily transportation needs.
2 - 7
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 8 of 18 ends

Adoption of the General Plan/DTSP is an important step in bringing the City into compliance with State law. Approval would also satisfy the Court Order which mandates adoption of these documents by September 27, 2023. Other aspects of the General Plan would be addressed at a later date, such as the provision to place a ballot initiative before South Pasadena voters in 2024 to consider removing the voter-approved height limit in certain areas and/or for certain projects. The goals, policies, and actions contained in the General Plan/DTSP support the kind of development identified by the community during the outreach phase of the project.

Table 2 provides an overview of the proposed land use designations. While the General Plan provides a broad description of the various land use designations, specific development standards are provided in the DTSP for properties within the DTSP area.

The Zoning Ordinance will be updated to reflect development standards for parcels outside the DTSP area.

Table 2: General Plan Land Use Designations
Intensity
Land Use
Designation
Maximum
Dwelling Units
per Acre
Target Building
Height
(in stories) Vicinity/Notes
Very Low
Intensity 3 1-2
Hillside areas and lower density,
established neighborhoods
Low Intensity 5 1-2
Western and southern portions of the City,
with some areas north of SR-110 and in
the areas adjacent to the DTSP.

Medium Intensity 30 1-3
Various areas, including portions of
Monterey Road, Huntington Drive, and
neighborhoods near the DTSP area.

High Intensity 45 1-4
Various areas, including Raymond Hill,
portions of Huntington Drive, Fair Oaks
Avenue, Monterey Road, and Pasadena
Avenue.

Mixed Use Core 70 1-51
Mission Street, Ostrich Farm, NW corner of
Fair Oaks Avenue and State Street, and
designated neighborhood centers on
Huntington Drive.

Fair Oaks
Corridor 110 1-71
Fair Oaks Avenue between SR-110 and
Lyndon Street in the DTSP boundaries.

Civic N/A NA Various areas.

Parks & Open
Space N/A N/A Various areas.

Preserves N/A N/A Various areas.

Table source: PEIR Exhibit 2-4
1The approval of building height in excess of 45’ would be pursuant to State Density Bonus concessions or waivers. Any increase to the base building height of 45’ would require a ballot measure and approval by South Pasadena residents.

Land Use Designations Overview
The following paragraphs describe the land use designations that are proposed in the General Plan update:
2 - 8
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 9 of 18 ends

Mixed Use Core
This land use designation encourages a wide range of building types depending on neighborhood characteristics. This designation applies to the vicinity of Mission Street in the DTSP, the Ostrich Farm area, as well as Neighborhood Centers on Huntington Drive.

The development intensity would allow up to 70 dwelling units per acre with allowable building height up to five stories (assuming State Density Bonus provisions). Table 1 provides the estimated number of dwelling units and non-commercial space that could feasibly be situated within Mixed Use Core areas.

Very Low Intensity
This land use designation permits detached single-family homes and is characterized by lots over 10,000 SF. Development intensity is limited to three (3) units per acre, with a target height of one to two stories. Over the life of the General Plan, an additional 10 units are anticipated for Very Low Intensity-designated land. No non-residential uses (commercial) are anticipated.

Low Intensity
This land use designation permits detached single-family homes and is characterized by lots of 5,000 to 10,000 SF. Development intensity allows for up to five (5) units per acre, with a target building height of one to two stories. Over the life of the General Plan, an additional 40 units are anticipated for Low Intensity-designated land. No non-residential uses (commercial) are anticipated.

Medium Intensity
This land use designation permits attached housing types such as courtyard housing, townhomes, bungalow courts, and multiplexes. This designation also contemplates single-family homes on small lots. Development intensity allows for up to 30 units per acre with target building heights in the one to three story range. Over the life of the General Plan, an additional 350 units are anticipated for Medium Intensity-designated land. No non-residential uses (commercial) are anticipated.

High Intensity
This land use designation permits multifamily residential development, including multistory apartments and condominiums. Development intensity allows up to 45 units per acre, with target building heights of one to four stories. Over the life of the General Plan, an additional 455 units are anticipated for High Intensity-designated land. No nonresidential uses (commercial) are anticipated.

Civic
This land use designation pertains to those parcels that have public or quasi-public uses, such as government, arts, culture, education, recreation, transit, security, health, safety, and other institutional activities. Due to the nature and unique purposes of civic, public, and quasi-public buildings, development intensity is not defined in the General Plan. This makes sense given that Civic-designated land could contain uses such as religious facilities, schools, libraries, or public facilities like reservoirs and infrastructure. 2 - 9
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 10 of 18 ends

Parks & Open Space
This designation applies to land that provides public recreation, leisure, and visual resources. Parcels range in size from small “tot lots” and pocket parks that serve a specific community, to urban squares, public plazas, playgrounds, and large regional parks that serve the entire City. Given the unique characteristics and purpose of buildings in recreational areas, development intensity is not defined.

Preserves
This designation applies to areas within the hills adjacent to existing established singlefamily residences. Preserve-designated land contains natural areas for the preservation of flora, fauna, geological, natural, historical, or similar features.

Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP): Mission Street and Fair Oaks Avenue Corridors Mission Street is the City’s historic main street and contains some of its most important buildings, including the City’s civic center. Fair Oaks Avenue is a major north/south arterial through the City. While Fair Oaks Avenue has remained economically viable, it has seen a decline in the quality of its urban environment due to the sprawl of buildings and lack of landscaping. By contrast, Mission Street has retained its historic character, particularly around the Metro A Line station. New infill development, along with successful retail businesses, have made Mission Street one of the most important destinations in the City.

The DTSP Update is a companion document to the General Plan and 2021-2019 Housing Element. The former Mission Street Specific Plan has been expanded to include Fair Oaks Avenue, and will be renamed the Downtown Specific Plan. The intention of the DTSP is to build upon the success of the previous Mission Street Specific Plan. The new DTSP includes policies and strategies to preserve historic assets, encourage contextual infill development of vacant and underutilized parcels, create jobs, maintain/support existing compatible businesses, and accommodate housing for a variety of income levels.

The DTSP fulfills and supports the goals, policies, and actions of the South Pasadena General Plan by promoting orderly growth and by utilizing existing infrastructure and services.

The DTSP is generally located along the Fair Oaks Avenue and Mission Street corridors.

On Fair Oaks Avenue, the DTSP boundary extends from SR-110 on the north to Lyndon Street to the south, including most properties between Mound Street and Fair Oaks Avenue. The eastern boundary is defined mainly by the alley immediately east of Fair Oaks Avenue, as well as Brent Avenue in the vicinity of El Centro and Mission Streets.

The Mission Street Corridor generally extends from Brent Avenue on the east to Indiana Avenue on the west, including properties on the south side of El Centro Street (roughly between the A Line tracks on the west and Brent Avenue on the east). The northern boundary follows Hope Street between Fair Oaks Avenue and Meridian Avenue, Magnolia Street between Meridian and Orange Grove Avenues, and the parcels on the north side of Mission Street between Orange Grove Avenue west to the vicinity of Indiana Avenue.
2 - 10
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 11 of 18 ends

The DTSP contains two primary zoning designations: Mixed Use Core and Fair Oaks Corridor.
• The Mixed Use Core encompasses the vicinity of Mission Street and contemplates a development intensity of 70 dwelling units per acre with a height range of 1-5 stories (building height above 45 feet could be achieved pursuant to State Density Bonus concessions and waivers).
• The Fair Oaks Corridor allows for more intensive development with a maximum density of 110 dwelling units per acre.

While the General Plan outlines development envelope standards such as allowable density and height, including provisions for taller building height in keeping with State Density Bonus concessions and waivers, the DTSP contains specific development standards under what is known as a “form-based code.” A form-based code provides objective development standards that aim to create an active streetscape and a walkable community. These standards would apply to both Mission Street and Fair Oaks Avenue.

The new DTSP contemplates a maximum of 1,230 additional units—880 units for Fair Oaks Avenue and 350 units for Mission Street—over the life of the plan (2040). The DTSP would also allow for up to 225,000 SF of new non-residential uses (commercial and office) with 175,000 SF anticipated for Fair Oaks Avenue and 50,000 SF for Mission Street.

As part of the Zoning Ordinance update, all references to the Mission Street Specific Plan will be replaced with the Downtown Specific Plan. Changes will be made to the applicable sections of the South Pasadena Municipal Code. Approval of the DTSP will supersede the existing Mission Street Specific Plan, and an Ordinance rescinding the Mission Street Specific Plan is proposed because that Specific Plan was initially adopted by Ordinance No. 2035.

General Plan/DTSP Outreach
Public input played a key role in formulating the proposed General Plan and DTSP. The City’s team for the General Plan Update consisted of an Executive Team, an Advisory Committee, and six Focus Groups. The Executive Team included key City staff members with a primary responsibility to keep the update process on schedule and within budget.

The Advisory Committee included City Council members, Planning Commissioners, and department heads that provided on-going direction. Focus Groups supported the public outreach process in developing policy options and actions to implement the public’s vision. The public outreach process included development of a project website, social media engagement, e-mail notifications, public surveys, pop-up workshops, stakeholder interviews, a lecture series, and a five-day visioning charrette. After a pause in preparation of the General Plan Update and DTSP documents, additional public meetings were held to provide the community with the current status of the Project and its path forward.

The process was put on hold as the City awaited clarification of an anticipated significant housing allocation through the State RHNA process, which would likely be different than 2 - 11
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 12 of 18 ends

the housing capacity being considered at that time. When the RHNA was finalized at 2,067 housing units (actually, 2,775 units including the required buffer), necessary adjustments were proposed for the General Plan Update and DTSP, to increase capacity and to revise the principles to reflect housing as a greater priority. More than 1,000 community members participated in the General Plan/DTSP update meetings.

Errata Tables
Errata tables were provided to the Planning Commission showing additional changes that were proposed but that were not included in the documents presented to the Commission.

Those revisions have been made in the documents presented to City Council. For informational purposes, these errata tables are attached to this staff report. New Errata Tables have been attached to this staff report that reflect additional revisions based on public comment and staff review after the Commission meetings. The errata revisions are considered minor and will not substantially alter or change the scope of the Project.

Associated Zoning Text Amendments
Although not a part of this agenda item, the Court Order requires the City to update its Zoning Code to support certain Housing Element programs within 120 days of adoption of the Housing Element. These programs include, but are not limited to, rezoning of parcels to accommodate higher densities, the clean-up of the City’s Density Bonus and Employee Housing language to be consistent with State law, along with reducing the City’s inclusionary housing requirement from 20% to 15%. These changes are being made concurrently with the General Plan/DTSP adoption process, but the ordinance changes would require second readings. The City is on-track to conduct a first reading of the Ordinances for the Zoning Text and Zoning Map Amendments on September 27, 2023, with second readings calendared for October 4, 2023. 2024 Ballot Initiative
In addition to the items currently being considered by the City Council, the Housing Element requires the City to place a ballot measure before the voters to consider raising the City’s existing height limit. Housing Element Program 2.n—Citywide Height Limit Ballot Initiative requires the City:
“…to seek, through voter approval in a local election, the repeal of the current height limit of 45 feet as to at least any residential or mixed-use (including residential) project on which the housing element anticipates a base density in excess of 50 units/acre. Such measure will be brought to the City Council for consideration prior to being placed on the ballot. The measure may either eliminate the height limit for these parcels entirely, or be replaced by a new height limit localized in the areas of increased density to stated density goals. If the height limit is replaced, the new limit would be no less than 84 feet to achieve the densities identified in the DTSP.” This Housing Element program is not part of the project being considered by the City Council this evening. Even so, the upcoming ballot initiative is included in the discussion 2 - 12
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 13 of 18 ends

to remind the Councilmembers and members of the public that the question of repealing the City’s voter-approved height limit will be presented to South Pasadena residents in November 2024 to implement Housing Element Program 2.n. It is also important to understand that while the City has a 45-foot building height limit that was approved by voters in 1983, buildings can be developed taller than 45 feet if a project qualifies for concessions and waivers provided through State Density Bonus law.

General Plan/Downtown Specific Plan Findings
SPMC Section 36.620.070(A) stipulates that a General Plan Amendment may be approved only if certain findings are met. The new General Plan follows the same process as a General Plan Amendment, meaning the following findings apply:

1. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan.

The proposed General Plan update is internally consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element that was adopted on May 30, 2023. The current General Plan that was adopted in 1998 is not internally consistent with the recently adopted Housing Element. The Housing Element is one of the elements required by State law. Adopting an updated General Plan that implements the policies and programs of the 2021-2029 Housing Element would make the documents internally consistent. Therefore, the City Council can make this finding in support of the Project.

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or general welfare of the City.

The General Plan Update would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or general welfare of the City because it would achieve internal consistency with the adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element. The General Plan Update also reflects substantial public comment, supporting a vision that was created by South Pasadena residents and community stakeholders. The General Plan will guide future growth of the City, and its goals, policies, and actions will support the health and safety of residents. Two chapters of the General Plan, Our Safe Community and Our Healthy Community, specifically address the safety and health of City residents.

The General Plan goals, policies, and actions further support the convenience and general welfare of the City by preserving existing single-family neighborhoods and focusing growth into specific areas where residents will have access to services and public transportation. The General Plan supports mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods, and provides the development capacity to accommodate projected future growth along with the housing programs identified in the Housing Element. Therefore, the City Council can make this finding. 2 - 13
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 14 of 18 ends

3. If applicable, the site is physically suitable (including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities) for the requested/anticipated project.

The General Plan applies to the entire City of South Pasadena and would implement the policies and programs of the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Substantial work went into identifying the City’s options in meeting its statemandated housing allocations. As the proposed General Plan supports the adopted Housing Element, a document that applies citywide, the City Council can make this finding.

As stated above, the City Council can make all of the necessary findings listed in SPMC Chapter 36.620.070(A) to adopt the new General Plan.

SPMC Chapter 36.440.050 (Processing and Review) states the City can adopt a Specific Plan in the same manner as required by State law for General Plans. Pursuant to SPMC Section 36.440.060, the City Council may adopt a specific plan only if it makes the following finding:

1. The proposed plan is in conformance with the actions, goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan and other adopted goals and policies of the City.

Specifically, the DTSP would implement the following Housing Element programs:

Program 2.a Provide Technical Assistance for Projects with Affordable Housing; Program 3.a Rezone and Re-designate Sites to Meet RHNA; Program 3.b MixedUse Developments and Adaptive Re-Use; Program 3.n Zoning Changes; and Program 4.e Universal Design. Given the DTSP is internally consistent with the proposed General Plan and adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element, therefore, the City Council can make this finding.

The DTSP also satisfies the requirements listed in SPMC Chapter 36.440.050(A-C), that requires environmental review, a staff report, and public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council can make all of the applicable findings to approve the project.

Environmental Analysis
The General Plan/ DTSP Update constitutes a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As such, a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was 2 - 14
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 15 of 18 ends

prepared and was submitted to the California State Clearing House (document SCH No. 2018011050). The PEIR addresses issues raised in January 2018 when the first Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated, as well as issues identified when the Recirculated Notice of Preparation (RNOP) was distributed in April 2021. Public comments were also received in a scoping meeting that was held on February 5, 2018, and again from a virtual scoping meeting that was conducted on May 3, 2021. While two NOPs were distributed for the PEIR, the baseline for environmental analysis was assumed to be April 2021.

Based on the scoping meetings, the following environmental areas of controversy were identified: traffic, parking, water supply, and waste water infrastructure.

Based on the analysis presented in the PEIR, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update and DTSP, along with the implementation programs contained in the 2021- 2029 Housing Element, would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts after implementation of feasible mitigation measures:

1. Aesthetics (Visual Character at a program and cumulative level);

2. Air Quality (Air Quality Management Plan Consistency, Regional Construction and Operational Emissions Standards Violation, and Cumulative Emissions at a program and cumulative level; Local Construction Emissions Standards Violation at a program level);

3. Cultural Resources (Historic Resources at a program and cumulative level);

4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG Emissions at a cumulative level);

5. Noise (Construction and Exterior Traffic Noise Standards Violation at a program and cumulative level); and

6. Population and Housing (Population Growth at a program and cumulative level).

A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required documenting that the physical, social, and economic benefits of the General Plan and DTSP would outweigh the adverse impacts associated with the updated community vision and guiding documents.

Tribal Consultation
The General Plan Update/DTSP project is subject to tribal consultation under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18. On March 13, 2018, the City initiated the offer of consultation by sending letters to applicable tribal representatives. Four tribes were contacted: the Gabrieleño/Tongva Tribe; Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation; and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. The tribal governments were also included in the original Notice of Preparation (NOP) that was dated January 18, 2018. The City received no response to its initial offer of consultation or the NOP in 2018.

On April 21, 2021, the City again initiated consultation under SB18 and AB52, due to the change in the General Plan Update/DTSP project and its associated Recirculated Notice of Preparation (RNOP). Consultation letters were sent to the Gabrieleño/Tongva San 2 - 15
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 16 of 18 ends

Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation; Gabrieleño/Tongva Tribe; Gabrieleño/Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council; and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. One tribe, the Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (Gabrieleño/Tongva Tribe), responded to the consultation request.

On June 10, 2021, the City met with the Gabrieleño/Tongva Tribe. The Gabrieleño/Tongva Tribe has ancestral ties to the South Pasadena area and is aware that Tribal Cultural Resources may be encountered as part of future development.

Consultation concluded with the Tribe desiring to have the opportunity to participate in Native American monitoring if mitigation measures or conditions of approval require such monitoring in the future. There are no known Gabrieleño/Tongva tribal cultural resources within the Project area (South Pasadena City limits) beyond those that were listed on the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search that was completed on July 15, 2020. The search was positive, meaning there are sites within the project area that are known to be significant/sacred to local Tribes. Results from the NAHC Sacred Lands File search are kept confidential to protect and preserve known sacred sites.

The public review period for the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ended on September 6, 2023. Staff and the environmental consultant are preparing the Final Program EIR for consideration by the City Council at its September 27, 2023, meeting.

Housing Element Environmental Assessment
In addition to the General Plan/DTSP PEIR, an Initial Study in conformity with 14 CCR 15080(c) and an Environmental Assessment in conformity with 14 CCR 15140, et seq., were prepared for the preparation and adoption of the City’s 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element. Based on the analysis presented in the Environmental Assessment, and as more thoroughly described therein, implementation of the proposed Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts after implementation of feasible mitigation measures: Air Quality (Air Quality Management Plan Consistency, Air Quality Standards Violation; Cumulative Air Quality Impacts); Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG Emissions); Noise (Direct and Cumulative Construction and Exterior Traffic Noise Standard Violation); and, Population and Housing (Population Growth).

Table ES-1 therein presents a summary of significant environmental impacts identified in Sections 3.1 through 3.16 of the Environmental Assessment; Mitigation Measures (MMs) that reduce any significant impacts; and the level of significance of each impact after mitigation. Significant irreversible environmental changes and growth-inducing impacts are addressed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations of the Environmental Assessment. Therefore, the proposed Zoning Code implementation of the Housing Element program requirements will not trigger any further CEQA review.

Conclusion
Based on the evidence presented in this staff report, the Draft PEIR, and the adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element, the City Council can make the findings to approve the 2 - 16
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 17 of 18 ends

Project. As such, two draft Resolutions have been prepared: A Resolution to adopt and certify the PEIR, and a Resolution to adopt and approve the new General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, including an ordinance to rescind the Mission Street Specific Plan upon the Downtown Specific Plan taking effect.

Next Steps
September 18, 2023: City Council conducts a Public Hearing, receives a staff presentation and public testimony on the project, and
continues the Public Hearing to September 27, 2023.

September 27, 2023: City Council concludes the continued Public Hearing, and once the Public Hearing is closed, considers
certifying/adopting the PEIR, and approving the project with first reading of Ordinances rescinding the MSSP, Zoning Text Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments.

October 4, 2023: Assuming the project is approved on September 27, 2023, with the first reading of the Ordinances, conduct a second reading and adopt said Ordinances.

Upon Second Reading of the Zoning Ordinance, and the adoption of General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, the City arguably would be in compliance with State law as well as satisfying its legal obligations set forth in the Court Order.

Public Notification of Agenda Item
A public notice for this Public Hearing was published in the South Pasadena Review on September 8, 2023. The public was also made aware of the Public Hearing through its inclusion in the legally publicly noticed agenda, posted physically at City Hall and also on the City’s website.

As of the writing of the staff report, the City has received seven comment letters on the project. Those letters, along with a summary of responses, are attached.

Fiscal Impact
Upon adoption of the General Plan and DTSP, staff time would be required to implement the plans, as directed by the City Council and in response to community needs. Upon adoption of the General Plan and DTSP, staff and consultant time will be required to implement the plans, as directed by the City Council and in response to community needs.

Key Performance Indicators and Strategic Plan
This project supports the following priorities in the Strategic Plan:

Priority 2: Create a strong economic development strategy to strengthen local business.
2 - 17
PEIR, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
September 18, 2023

Page 18 of 18 ends

Priority 3: Develop a comprehensive emergency preparedness plan to ensure public safety through active response and recovery efforts.

Priority 4: Enhance community sustainability through investment in infrastructure and environmental management programs.

Priority 5: Plan for affordable housing to comply with state mandates and respond to community needs.

Legal Review
The City Attorney has reviewed this item.

Attachments

1. Draft Approval Resolution
a. Exhibit A: General Plan
b. Exhibit B: General Plan Errata Table
c. Exhibit C: Downtown Specific Plan
d. Exhibit D: Downtown Specific Plan Errata Table

2. Comment Letters

3. Public Comment Response Summary

4. Planning Commission Errata Tables

5. Resolution P.C. 23-05

6. Resolution P.C. 23-06
2 - 18
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Approval Resolution
2 - 19

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 20
RESOLUTION NO. ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE 2023

GENERAL PLAN AND THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AS

SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, AND EXHIBIT D, AND RESCIND THE MISSION STREET SPECIFIC PLAN.

WHEREAS, Sections 65580 et. seq. of the California Government Code requires each city and county to periodically prepare and update its Housing Element in its General Plan. City of South Pasadena received the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers from the Southern California Association of Government in 2019 and started to updating the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2022, the City of South Pasadena was sued by Californians for Homeownership for non-compliance with State housing Law for failing to have adopted a compliant Housing Element by October 15, 2021 (Californians for Homeownership v. City of South Pasadena), LASC Case Nos. 22STCP01388 & 22STCP01161); and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2022, the City entered into a Settlement Agreement with Californians for Homeownership to resolve the lawsuit, and that the Settlement Agreement committed the City to a number of actions, including but not limited to: completing the necessary rezoning to support the Housing Element within 120 days of the adoption of the Housing Element; and addition of a program to seek, through voter approval, the removal of the City’s existing 45-foot height limit for at least any parcel identified in the Housing Element for which the base density is anticipated to exceed 50 dwelling units per acre; and
2 - 21
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Resolution No. ___

Page 2 of 6 ends

WHEREAS, on August 19, 2022, the Settlement Agreement was adopted as the Court Order and committed the City to adopting a housing element certified by or eligible for certification by HCD no later than May 31, 2023; and WHEREAS, on May 30, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the Draft Housing Element. After hearing public testimony on the project, considering the staff report, staff presentation, and Council discussion, in keeping with the stipulations of the Court Order, the City Council adopted the Housing Element, thereby commencing the 120-day period in which the City must adopt changes to the Zoning Ordinance to support the Housing Element and its programs; and
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2023, and June 17, 2023, public workshops on the General Plan and DTSP were held wherein the community received a presentation and provided input on the Project; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, the Draft General Plan and DTSP were released for public comments; and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued to the Public Hearing to August 21, 2023, wherein the Planning Commission received a staff presentation, considered the staff report, public testimony, Planning Commission discussion, and all other materials and evidence, whether written or oral, and in a 5-0 vote, adopted Resolution No, P.C. 23- 06 recommending the City Council approve the project; and WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was prepared for the Project, including related Housing Element implementation actions, and the Planning Commission considered the Draft PEIR and at a duly noticed Public Hearing that commenced on August 8, 2023 and continued on August 21, 2023, through Resolution No. P.C. 23-05, recommended the City Council of the City of South Pasadena certify the final PEIR, adopt required findings of fact, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the project was presented to the City Council in a Study Session meeting on August 29, 2023, wherein the City Council received a presentation from staff, including a presentation from Rangwala and Associates, the project’s consultant, received public testimony, and City Council discussion on the project; and
WHEREAS, the project was the subject of a duly-noticed Public Hearing before the City Council on September 18, 2023, wherein the City Council received a presentation from staff, considered the staff report, public testimony, the Draft General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, and City Council discussion on the Project; and
2 - 22
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Resolution No. ___

Page 3 of 6 ends

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE,
DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: The above recitals are hereby declared to be true and correct and are incorporated herein as findings of the South Pasadena City Council.

SECTION 2: Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the Public Hearing, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, and the environmental documentation, the City Council finds:

A. All necessary Public Hearings and opportunities for public testimony and comment have been conducted in compliance with applicable law; B. That the environmental impacts of the Project have been adequality analyzed and addressed, and that the City Council, through Resolution ____, adopts and approves the project.

SECTION 3: GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS. South Pasadena Municipal Code (SPMC) Section 36.620.070(A) stipulates that a General Plan Amendment may be approved only if certain findings are met. The new General Plan follows the same process as a General Plan Amendment, meaning the following findings apply:

1. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan; The proposed General Plan update is internally consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element that was adopted on May 30, 2023. The current General Plan that was adopted in 1998 is not internally consistent with the recently adopted Housing Element. The Housing Element is one of the elements required by State law. Therefore, adopting an updated General Plan that implements the policies and programs of the 2021-2029 Housing Element would make the documents internally consistent. Therefore, the City Council can make this finding in support of the Project.

Page 4 of 6 ends

Housing Element. The General Plan Update also reflects substantial public comment, supporting a vision that was created by South Pasadena residents and community stakeholders. The General Plan will guide future growth of the City, and its goals, policies, and actions will support the health and safety of residents. Two chapters of the General Plan, Our Safe Community and Our Healthy Community, specifically address the safety and health of City residents. The General Plan goals, policies, and actions further support the convenience and general welfare of the City by preserving existing single-family neighborhoods and focusing growth into specific areas where residents will have access to services and public transportation. The General Plan supports mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods, and provides the development capacity to accommodate projected future growth along with the housing programs identified in the Housing Element. Therefore, the City Council can make this finding.

The General Plan applies to the entire City of South Pasadena and would implement the policies and programs of the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Substantial work went into identifying the City’s options in meeting its state-mandated housing allocation. As the proposed General Plan supports the adopted Housing Element, a document that applies citywide, the City Council can make this finding.

As stated above, the City Council can make all of the necessary findings listed in SPMC Chapter 36.620.070(A) to adopt the new General Plan.

SECTION 4: SPECIFIC PLAN FINDINGS. Pursuant to SPMC Section

36.440.060, the City Council may adopt a specific plan only if it finds that:

1. The proposed plan is in conformance with the actions, goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan and other adopted goals and policies of the City.

The proposed DTSP is consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, policies, and programs of both the proposed General plan and adopted Housing Element. The DTSP envisions additional housing units and nonresidential development potential within the City’s urban core, and supports growth in commercial corridors and higher-density residential areas near the Metro A Line station and bus routes. Specifically, the DTSP would implement the following Housing Element programs: Program 2.a Provide Technical Assistance for Projects with Affordable Housing; Program 3.a Rezone and Re-designate Sites to Meet RHNA; Program 3.b Mixed-Use Developments and Adaptive Re-Use; Program 3.n Zoning 2 - 24
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Resolution No. ___

Page 5 of 6 ends

Changes; and Program 4.e Universal Design. Given the DTSP is internally consistent with the proposed General Plan and adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element, therefore, the City Council can make this finding.

The DTSP also satisfies the requirements listed in SPMC Chapter 36.440.050(A-C), that requires environmental review, a staff report, and public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. As such, the City Council can make all of the applicable findings to approve the Project and rescind the MSSP upon the DTSP taking effect.

SECTION 5: Based upon the foregoing, the City Council:

A. Adopts the General Plan update, thereby making the General Plan internally consistent with the adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element. The dwelling units and non-residential development contemplated by the General Plan would be accommodated in the proposed Downtown Specific Plan and other areas of City that will be rezoned consistent with programs identified in the Housing Element. The General Plan will serve as one of the City’s guiding documents, and its goals, policies, and actions will direct the City’s growth and operations through 2040, the estimated lifespan of the General Plan (Exhibit A with modifications as set forth in Exhibit B).

B. Adopts the Downtown Specific Plan and rescinds the Mission Street Specific Plan, which is consistent with the proposed General Plan and adopted 2021- 2029 Housing Element, and that once adopted, the Downtown Specific Plan will supersede and replace the Mission Street Specific Plan (MSSP) and that all references to the MSSP in the applicable South Pasadena Municipal Code (SPMC) sections shall be interpreted as references to the DTSP (Exhibit C with modifications as set forth in Exhibit D).

C. That upon approval and adoption, the existing General Plan that was initially adopted in 1998 and the Mission Street Specific Plan that initially adopted in 1996, shall be rendered moot and shall be superseded by the 2023 General Plan and the 2023 DTSP.

SECTION 6: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 2 - 25
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Resolution No. ___

Page 6 of 6 ends

Jon Primuth, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 18th day of September, 2023. ________________________________

I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing Resolution No. ___ was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of South Pasadena, California, at a special meeting held on the 18th day of September, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:
_______________________________
Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk
________________________
Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk
_______________________________
Roxanne Diaz, City Attorney
2 - 26
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A: Draft General Plan (Link)
2 - 27
----

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 28
ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B: Draft General Plan Errata Table
2 - 29

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 30
Additional Errata Items
GENERAL PLAN CITY COUNCIL ERRATA ITEMS 9-18-23
Page Action Reason Notes
Table of
Contents
Revise the mayor's name to "Jon
Primuth" Add this revision to the Acknowledgements section Table of
Contents
Add in the name of "David
Watkins"
David was the Planning and Building Director. He should be listed in the Acknowledgement section.

MISCELLANEOUS (CITY COUNCIL 9-18-23)
Housing
Element Revise Table V1-51 Ed Elsner Letter 8-23-23
The table will be revised to reflect the correct density information.
2 1- 31

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 32
ATTACHMENT 4
Exhibit C: Draft Downtown Specific Plan (Link)
2 - 33
----

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 34
ATTACHMENT 5
Exhibit D: Draft Downtown Specific Plan Errata Table
2 - 35

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 36
Additional Errata Items
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN ERRATA (CITY COUNCIL 9-18-23)
Page Action Reason Notes
DTSP p. 103
Revise Table C3.1 to require a
CUP for "Public assembly,
meeting facility, place of
worship" uses. Mark Gallatin Letter 8-31-23
DTSP p. 152
Revise Section C9.2 Sign Types:

Signs on historic buildings require
Cultural Heritage Approval. Mark Gallatin Letter 8-31-23 DTSP p. 161
Revise Section C11.1 to delete
"Building Accessory". Mark Gallatin Letter 8-31-23
"Building Accessory" is redundant since "Accessory Building" is already listed.

DTSP p. 171
The Mills Act will be added back
into the list of local programs. Mark Gallatin Letter 8-31-23 2 1- 37

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 38
ATTACHMENT 6
Draft Ordinance (to rescind the Mission Street Specific Plan) 2 - 39

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 40
1 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
ORDINANCE NO.______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING THE

MISSION STREET SPECIFIC PLAN AS ADOPTED IN
ORDINANCE NO. 2035
WHEREAS, the adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element calls for amendment of the City Code of the City of South Pasadena and adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan to update zoning designations to allow for additional housing to be constructed within the City; and,
WHEREAS, on May 1, 1996, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2035 adopting the Mission Street Specific Plan and making related zone changes; and, WHEREAS, the area governed by Mission Street Specific Plan is included in the new Downtown Specific Plan, which upon taking effect is intended to supersede the Mission Street Specific Plan; and,
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2023, the South Pasadena Planning Commission considered, among other things, the Downtown Specific Plan and the related rescission of the Mission Street Specific Plan Ordinance at a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, at which time the City Staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; and, WHEREAS, on August 21, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted P.C.

Resolution No. 23-06 recommending, among other things, adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan and Rescission of the Mission Street Specific Plan upon the effective date of the Downtown Specific Plan; and,
WHEREAS, on September 18 and September 27, 2023, the City Council, considered this Ordinance at duly noticed public hearings, as prescribed by law, at which time the City Staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; and,
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the City Council considered the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
2 - 41
2 Section 1. Recitals. The City Council finds the foregoing recitals and their findings to be true and correct, and hereby incorporates such recitals and their findings into this Ordinance.

Section 2. Findings. The City Council of the City of South Pasadena in approving the proposed Code amendments hereby makes the following findings:

A. This Ordinance is consistent with the South Pasadena 2021-2029 Housing Element, and the South Pasadena General Plan. Specifically, this Ordinance rescinds inconsistent Mission Street Specific Plan to achieve consistency at such time as the Downtown Specific Plan is adopted and becomes effective.

B. This Ordinance will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. Rescission of the Mission Street Specific Plan ensures that the Downtown Specific Plan governs the development of the downtown areas in the City.

Section 3. The City Council hereby rescinds the Mission Street Specific Plan.

Once this Ordinance goes into effect, the Mission Street Specific Plan shall be of no further force or effect, and shall be superseded by the Downtown Specific Plan.

Thereafter any reference in the South Pasadena City Code to the Mission Street Specific Plan shall be construed as a reference to the Downtown Specific Plan.

Section 4. Environmental Findings. This Ordinance reflects an action to implement the City’s adopted Housing Element, which was included within the scope of the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the General Plan Update, Downtown Specific Plan and Housing Element Implementation Project. The City Council, exercising its independent judgment, previously adopted Resolution No. [insert number] certifying the Final PEIR, making required findings, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopting a Statement of Overriding considerations for the Project of which this Ordinance is a part. In approving this Ordinance, the City Council hereby relies on the environmental determinations and findings set forth in Resolution No. [insert number], which is hereby incorporated herein by reference. The amendments made by this Ordinance were also contemplated by the Environmental Assessment prepared and adopted in conjunction with the City Council’s adoption of the Housing Element. Each of these provide separate and independent bases demonstrating compliance with the CEQA.

Section 5. Severability. If any section subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections and/or provisions of this Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or 2 - 42
3 phrase hereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on the date the Downtown Specific Plan goes into effect, the City Clerk of the City of South Pasadena shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and to its approval by the Mayor and City Council, and shall cause the same to be published in a newspaper in the manner required by law.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON this XXth day of XXXX, 2023.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Jon Primuth, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk Roxanne Diaz, City Attorney 2 - 43
■ -

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 44
ATTACHMENT 7
Planning Commission Ad Hoc Report and Recommendations
2 - 45

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 46
DTSP Ad Hoc Committee page 1 August 22, 2023

MEMORANDUM
DATE August 22, 2023 PROJECT South Pasadena Downtown
Specific Plan
Ad Hoc Committee TO Alison Becker, AICP
Deputy Director
OF Community Development
City of South Pasadena
FROM Arnold Swanborn, AIA
John Lesak AIA
CC VIA Email
REGARDING South Pasadena Downtown Specific Plan Ad Hoc Committee Initial Observations and Recommendations
At the August 7th, 2023 meeting of the South Pasadena Planning Commission, an ad hoc committee consisting of Commissioners Arnold Swanborn and John Lesak, was formed in order to perform a high level review the draft Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). The review was intended to test scenarios to form an initial opinion on the ease of use of the document and make recommendations for improvement.

The ad hoc committee held a working meeting on Sunday, August 13. Given the short timeframe and desire to keep planning staff informed of progress, Commissioner Swanborn provided a list of comments via email on Wednesday, August 16 and Commissioner Lesak met with staff to discuss via teleconference on Thursday, August 17. Because the ad hoc committee was looking at scenarios, much of the review is focused on Part C Code. This memo attempts to summarize the ad hoc committee’s initial observations and make targeted recommendations to improve the DTSP.

Observations
Possibly due to lack of familiarity with the DTSP, the ad hoc committee had a difficult time working through the document. Both digital and printed copies of the plan were used.

1. Readability & Navigation. Accessibility and legibility are critical elements of successful document design.
a. As noted in the August 7 meeting, maps and diagrams can be difficult to read. Text is often too small and/or faint. Maps and aerial drawings often lack sufficient street names 2 - 47
DTSP Ad Hoc Committee page 2 August 22, 2023
and/or north arrows. Boundary lines illustrating overlays are frequently missing and/or too faint to read.
b. When using the digital document, there was considerable page-turning required to find general explanations, keys for tables and maps, definition of acronyms. As a digital document each page needs to be self-sufficient.
c. The Table of Contents lacks a detailed breakdown and there is no Index.

2. Pre-COVID/RHNA Feel. Uses and building types emphasized (not necessarily codified) in the DTSP feel outdated given the current conditions.
a. The viability of suggested uses feels somewhat suspect in today’s commercial real estate markets.
b. Starting the Building Types list with single-family residence seems out of touch with our RHNA allotment and current state mandates, emphasis should be on larger developments.
c. The first scenario examined by the committee was the former school district site (1100 El Centro). When including all the tied parcels, the site is approximately 280 feet along Mission St. and El Centro frontages and 295 feet fronting Fairview and Diamond Avenues. The maximum site dimensions for the Mixed-Use Core Zone are 200 by 200 ft (Table D, page 107). Similar maximum size requirements exist within the Fair Oaks Avenue Zone, even though there are several large sites for potential development. d. Conversely, small sites seem well accounted for in the DTSP and there are several small parcels clustered at locations where the plan transitions to residential neighborhoods – such as the south sides of Hope and Magnolia Streets, as well as the west end of Mission. Acquiring and tying parcels in these areas could open the door for larger development within these transition zones.

3. Information from Other Zoning Documents. Even with the “form-base” of the code, there are some metrics that should apply to the developments within the plan area. Maximum unit density and minimum unit sizes are included in other planning documents, but to the best of our knowledge were not included or cross-referenced in the DTSP. Ideally, the DTSP would be as much of a “one-stop shop” as possible.
a. Confirm density bonus narrative aligns with IHO.

4. Lack of Nuance. The format and charts may not be flexible enough - sometimes they are too generalized and sometimes too specific. For example,
a. Maximum lot size requirements (see 2.c)
b. Provide greater range of floor heights.
2 - 48
DTSP Ad Hoc Committee page 3 August 22, 2023
c. Provide more flexibility for step back dimensions and courtyard proportions to better meet open space requirements. 1:1:1 ration may not always be the best ratio.

5. Content Needs Development
a. Overlay zones.
b. Street types.

Recommendations

1. Improve readability and navigation.
a. Increase font sizes, image resolution.
b. Figures with massing illustrations should have Streets clearly identified and targeted area framing where appropriate to clarify map/diagram orientation for the User. c. Include an index.
d. Document layout for print should have chapter breaks for tabs. e. Add a “how to navigate" flow chart to help first time users.

2. Include essential development standards/information, such as maximum density and minimum unit size or specifically referenced so user can easily find them. User should not have to consult multiple documents for essential information.

3. Add section on material standards.

4. Include a transitional overlay to describe typologies appropriate for mixed use when abutting single family residential zones.

5. Better define street types so document addresses circumstances when parcels have frontages on streets with unique character (ie. Commercial, residential). a. Increase locations where storefronts turn corners.

6. Building and Frontage typologies should be organized from most intense to least intense.

Consider removing Single Family from Code.

7. Consider bonuses for architectural features, gabled roof, towers, etc.

Budgetary

8. Augment City Staff capacity with a Town Architect position (bench or on call contract)

9. Digitize document so that it is easy to navigate, search and cross-reference. Provide internal links.

10. Revise administrative draft with commission changes prior to City Council review.

Specific Code Revisions
Pg. 98 – C2.2.A.2 – Revise to require storefront to wrap corners at least 30’ when frontage is on Mission or Fair Oaks.
2 - 49
DTSP Ad Hoc Committee page 4 August 22, 2023
Pg. 106 -107 C.4.3 – Section figures need a sub-section. Increase ground floor min height to 15 ft and remove minimum height for upper floors. Remove courtyard minimum reference to avoid confusion with open space standards in section C5.

Pg. 107 C4.3.D – Remove minimum/maximum site dimension requirements.

Pg 126 Table C6.1 – Arcade: add “subject to review and permitting for right of way encroachment by the Department of Public Works”.
2 - 50
ATTACHMENT 8
Comment Letters
2 - 51

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 52
From: Ed Elsner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 10:18 AM
To: City Council Public Comment <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment, Item 3., Special Meeting, August 29, 2023 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. [Dear City Clerk: Below please find a public comment on Item 3. of the agenda for the City Council’s special meeting on August 29, 2023. Also attached is an email previously sent directly to the City Council on August 24, 2023; please include the email in the record as an additional public comment on the same agenda item. Thank you.] August 28, 2023
Dear City Council:

The City should begin the process of amending the adopted housing element without delay, in particular Table VI-51 and program 3.a.

Table VI-51 is a required component of the housing element, with legal effect under the Government Code and under the terms of the settlement agreement in the housing element lawsuit against the City.

Among other reasons to amend Table VI-51 (some of which are mentioned in my previous August 24th email, see attached), the settlement agreement obligates the City to seek voter approval to modify the height limit for “the parcels for which the housing element anticipates a base density in excess of 50 units/acre.” This would include every single parcel on Huntington Drive, all of which are identified in the table as having a 70 units/acre density, whether or not the parcel is located in a mixed use overlay district.

At the risk of stating the obvious, a ballot measure asking voters to approve a height limit of no less than 84 feet along the entire Huntington corridor would fail, forcing a wholesale, mid-cycle revision of the housing element.

In addition to every medium and high density residential parcel on Huntington Drive, there are medium and high density residential parcels elsewhere in the City that are similarly identified in the table as having a 70 units/acre density.

Exclusion of these parcels from the 2024 ballot measure could not be justified by arguing that the 70 units/acre density stated in Table VI-51 was incorrect. 2 - 53
This is because the medium and high density residential parcels on Huntington Drive identified as having a 70 units/acre density were brought to the attention of the City (including the former city attorney who negotiated and signed the settlement agreement), yet no change was made to the stated density before the draft housing element was changed in other respects, approved by HCD, and adopted by the City Council.

In a legal proceeding, this chronology could be cited as evidence of intent, not mistake.

Moreover, the anticipated development capacity of the adopted housing element’s rezoning program was calculated using a 70 units/acre density for the medium and high density residential parcels in question.

HCD's reliance on the calculations would make it difficult to argue that the density for the parcels should be lower for purposes of determining whether the parcels must be included in the 2024 ballot measure.

Although the draft general plan indicates densities of "Max 30 units/acre" and "Max 45 units/acre" for medium and high intensity land uses, this would have no relevance to that determination, as the settlement agreement expressly ties the ballot measure to the densities indicated in the housing element for parcels identified for rezoning.

The language in program 3.a. itself that “the City will increase the allowable zoning within the Medium Density Residential zone to at least 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and to at least 45 du/ac within the High Density Residential zone” isn’t helpful here, as the 70 units/acre density indicated in the table for select medium and high density residential parcels is consistent with that language.

Although I think it would be a good idea to remove every medium and high density residential parcel from Table VI-51 -- among other things, it would minimize the displacement of existing tenants, preserve existing housing stock, and fix other problems in the table -- I do not expect the City will go in that direction.

If not, the amended housing element should use “max” instead of “at least” in program 3.a., and the densities indicated in the amended Table VI-51 for the listed medium and high density residential parcels should be consistent with the maximum densities specified in the program.

Thank you for your consideration.
2 - 54
Ed Elsner
(626) 233-1543
2 - 55
Ed Elsner <[email protected]>
Housing Element Rezoning Program
Ed Elsner <[email protected]> Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 3:26 PM To: [email protected]
August 24, 2023
Dear City Council:

I’m writing to encourage you to revisit the adopted housing element -- especiallyTable VI-51 -- before taking action on the draft general plan and proposed zoning code amendments.

A mandatory component of the housing element relied on by HCD to quantify the City’s rezoning program, Table VI-51 is seriously flawed.

One error is that the 400% development capacity adjustment for the listed high-density parcels (i.e., parcels that are proposed to be rezoned to 50+ units per acre) was not actually included in the calculation of the total anticipated development capacity for any of the parcels.

Table VI-51 therefore understates the total anticipated development capacity of these parcels by 2,641 housing units.

Put another way, when the error is corrected, the cumulative site capacity for the entire housing element is almost double the 2,775 capacity stated in the adopted housing element approved by HCD.

Another error is that the listed medium and high density residential parcels in the Huntington Drive corridor are identified in the table as having a 70 unit per acre density.

This arguably establishes a higher allowable density for the listed parcels than indicated in the draft general plan and zoning code amendments, an inconsistency that could lead to litigation by developers and advocacy groups, ultimately resulting in unintended, out-of-scale projects along the Huntington Drive corridor.

With a surplus capacity of 2,641 units above and beyond the 2,775 RHNA allocation and buffer approved by HCD, the scope of the adopted housing element’s rezoning program is overbroad and can and should be dialed back.

For example, if the City maintained existing densities for the medium and high density residential zones, and removed all medium and high density residential parcels from Table VI-51, the total anticipated development capacity for the remaining parcels would nevertheless be 2,033 housing units, including 1,016 lower-income, 508 moderate-income, and 508 above-moderate income units.

Compared to the totals stated in Table VI-51 of the adopted housing element (i.e., 1,178 total, including 533 lowerincome, 266 moderate-income, and 379 above moderate-income units), this would be a significant improvement.

Maintaining existing densities for medium and high density residential zones would also minimize mass evictions and displacement of current tenants, as well as help preserve existing housing stock.

The high-density, mixed-use overlays on Huntington Drive should also be reconsidered; upzoning Huntington Drive is not necessary to meet the City's RHNA obligations.

There may be other implications and unintended consequences for the current and future RHNA planning cycles if Table VI-51 is left as is.

When I met with City staff and the former city attorney on March 24, 2023, I advocated for correcting the Table VI-51 errors even if it meant delaying submission of the draft housing element to HCD for review. 2 - 56
Gmail
However, the former city attorney cited dire consequences in the housing element litigation as a reason for moving forward with the submission of the uncorrected draft that evening.

Yet, more than a month later on April 28, 2023, a subsequent draft of the housing element was circulated making other changes, but leaving Table VI-51 untouched.

My feeling is that a pause to correct the errors in Table VI-51, to dial back the rezoning program, and to update the draft general plan and zoning code amendments for consistency, is worth the effort.

If the end result is a housing element exceeding the site capacity of the previously-approved housing element, minimizing the risk of tenant displacement, and preserving existing housing stock, this would be a favorable posture in any legal proceeding that might arise from missing the rezoning deadline.

The City would be acting reasonably and in good faith, and the recommended changes would promote the goals of the housing element law and help preserve the character of the City at the same time.

Thank you for your consideration.

Ed Elsner
(626) 233-1543
2 - 57
From: Gary Coyne <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 2:45 PM
To: CCO <[email protected]>
Subject: A letter sent to the planning commission
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I sent this letter to the Planning Commission. It was advised that I send the same letter to the council.

Thank you,
Gary Coyne
2 - 58
To whom it may concern. August 21, 2023
The state has mandated that cities provide for certain levels of population growth. Apparently, South Pasadena has failed to submit proposals deemed by the state to be satisfactory, and the clock is ticking.

Suddenly, without prior notice or opportunity for the public to be heard on it, a new and drastically different proposal is apparently going to be presented to the state, by which South Pasadena promises to double the population of South Pasadena by removing all of our major shopping sites (including our major grocery stores and our only hardware store) and building multiple high-rise buildings on our already-congested streets.

The proposal states we will turn a town of about 26,000 people into one of 50,000. How will South Pasadena make our roads able to accommodate twice as many vehicles? How will it make our schools able to accommodate twice as many students? Where will South Pasadena’s water supply for another 25,000 people come from, and at what cost? The proposal sets population goals far in excess of what the state requires. This is not an aspirational proposal; if accepted, it will be set in stone. History tells us that the proposal will become the baseline on which future requirements are based. And it will happen even though water is scarce, energy is scarce, and the population will continue to grow. So this proposal is just plain bad. It shows a total failure to consider the financial, social, and environmental impact on the city.

Power outages are part of South Pasadena. Despite anyone’s intentions, our house goes black multiple times in any year. How will doubling the population affect our basic grid? How will our limited water supply service twice as many people? How much will it cost us, and where will the money come from, to pay for upgraded utilities, police and fire services, and schools? How will extreme density negatively impact the value of our homes, the quality of our schools, the condition of our roads, access to emergency services, and so forth? This is a breaking point.

Our city’s reputation is built on its schools and its small-town atmosphere. The proposal guts the essence of the city.

This is not to say South Pasadena should not comply with the state law; it must comply. But it should not go to the absurd extremes this proposal promises. That South Pasadena has not been able to come up with a proposal that meets state approval does not mean this proposal is good. It is not. Rather, it suggests that our City is not getting good or rational guidance.

Rather than removing our essential shopping services, straining our already-strained public services, and compressing high-rise residences into already-congested routes, the City should be looking at more realistic population density and should be proposing construction in available underused spaces on the west side of town. Do we really need undeveloped commercial areas or a golf course?
Despite the best of intentions, this plan is simply ridiculous and poorly thought out. 2 - 59
From: Patricia Rose <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 4:13 PM
To: CCO <[email protected]>
Subject: Email the Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Patricia Rose <[email protected]> Aug 20,
2023,
11:50 PM
(8 days
ago)
to PlanningComments, cco
On January 6, 2023, State Superintendent Tony Thurmond announced California Distinguished Elementary Schools. South Pasadena's three elementary schools--Arroyo Vista, Marengo Elementary, and Monterey Hills made the list based on their assessment results. These excellent assessment results would not have been possible in overcrowded classrooms where teachers do not have the time to attend to individual student learning and assessment.

How will increasing the RHNA unit demands of 2,067 units to over 13,000 affect student learning and achievement? South Pasadena has 1 high school, 1 middle school, and 3 elementary schools. Obviously class size must increase to accommodate the influx of new students unless South Pasadena intends to build more schools. Larger class size means less teacher time devoted to each student and more multiple choice testing to assess student learning. I know because for 25 years, I was a full time English professor at Pasadena City College. English professors fought for years to reduce the class size of its writing classes from 35 students to 25 students per class. This reduction of class size meant students did more academic writing and instructors gave more individual attention to their thinking, research, and writing skills. Do the research-- smaller class size means more instructor time per student and a higher rate of student success.

Both of our children attended South Pasadena schools. In fact, we moved to South Pasadena because of its excellent public schools. Our children did in fact receive an excellent education and are now practicing attorneys. One has already made partner at her law firm while my son is an attorney for Amazon Web Services. I truly believe that their academic success in college and law school stems from the individual attention they received from their teachers in South Pasadena schools.

How will our 3 elementary schools, 1 middle school, and one high school accomodate this influx of more students? How will an increase in class size affect student learning and achievement? I guess teachers could accommodate more students in each class 2 - 60
II
by giving multiple choice tests. Think carefully before you increase the 2,067 units demanded by the state to over 13,000 if you care about the education and future of our students.

Patricia Rose
625 Meridian Avenue
South Pasadena, CA 91030
2 - 61
From: Gail Maltun <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 11:03:17 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; CDD <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Cacciotti <[email protected]>; Janet Braun <[email protected]>; Evelyn Zneimer <[email protected]>; Jack Donovan <[email protected]>; Jon Primuth <[email protected]>; City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Study Session General Plan
August 29, 2023
Dear City Council members and City staff,
I have a few comments on the General Plan, and on the future of South Pasadena.

1. The State requires upzoning and is pressuring for an unprecedented amount of development in the next 8 years. We will see projects that are taller, and of higher density, than have been built previously. Some unattractive, badly designed projects will be proposed: in fact, at least one recently-approved project will deface an important intersection for decades to come. The only way to control how South Pasadena looks and feels, and to retain a sense of place, is to craft form-based codes that are specific, and are carefully and deeply thought out, for developments of all sizes, from dense downtown buildings to the “missing middle” on our residential streets. The Planning Commission and the Design Review Commission will be far more important that previously. Members will need to be chosen very carefully. And these commissions, as well as the Community Development Department, will need to have teeth. Other cities, such as Santa Barbara, exercise far more control over new projects: Poorly designed and unattractive projects are sent back to the drawing board time and time again; commercial projects have been required to include ground floor retail. South Pasadena has an unfortunate history of approving bad projects that we are stuck with for decades. Create rules and appoint commission members who will ensure that new development enhances rather than detracts from the beauty and livability of South Pasadena.

2. I understand that you are considering a new contract for the golf course. The Golf Course, along with the Stables, make up over 30 acres and constitute our only available space for development. We have no surplus shopping malls or light industrial space to redevelop. Here is our nightmare, but actual, predicament: The State has given us a provisional pass on our Housing Element. As a part of it, the State is requiring a ballot measure to repeal the 45 foot limit, and replace it with an absurd height limit that would permit 7-10 story buildings. This is highly unlikely to pass. We will then be out of compliance and will need to propose another option to provide space for the 2,067 required housing units. Here are our choices. We can upzone every residential street to R3, and allow 3-4 story apartment buildings on our R1 streets. Or, we can permit the building of hundreds of units of housing on the golf course and the 2 - 62
stables. The golf course is neither “green” nor “open space”. It is closed to the public, and guzzles water and fertilizer. In a perfect world, I would keep it and improve it.

Perhaps the political tide will turn in the next few years, and the State will moderate its position. But in the meantime, please refrain from making any commitments for the use of that land. All you need to do is…nothing. Simply continue leasing that property month-to-month, as it has for years. To sign a new contract for the golf course at this time would be an insane decision, and one that could damage South Pasadena for decades. For the 5th draft Housing Element, we wrote a letter proposing retaining the golf course for possible development, and got dozens of signers in just a few hours. Expect an outcry from the community if the City enters into a new contract that ties up the Golf Course property.

I am pleased that Mr. Rangwalla was contracted to complete our General Plan. He did a great job several years ago, and has undoubtedly done his best to complete the plan in the very tight time frame that was required.

I am attaching some photos on the following page illustrating 4 and 5 story buildings, residential over retail, that show what is possible with good design that is sensitive to the surrounding community. The City has very little power to determine its future right now. Please act responsibly to require good design standards, and refrain from any action regarding the Arroyo properties.

Sincerely,
Gail Maltun
2 - 63
Above: 3001 Ashby Avenue, at Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley. Below: 1801 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley. Both dense, 4-5 story buildings that are sensitive to, and enhance their neighborhood.
2 - 64
From: Joanne Nuckols <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 11:30 AM
To: City Council Public Comment <[email protected]> Subject: 8/29/23 agenda Workshop planning documents
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City council, I have serious concerns related to all the documents on your agenda tonight that relate to the future development in South Pasadena.

In talking to SP residents, friends, neighbors, etc that live in town, there is little to no understanding of these documents and how they will affect the future of SP. In fact, there has been no public meetings to explain and educate what is in the documents since the drafts were released in July.

Why is there no public education for input as required by HCD? The draft GP has 5 listed approach to K. CIVIC ENGAGEMENT none has been fulfilled to any satisfaction in the last 3 months.

Why has the information about drastic up zoning been withheld/buried in the document? The full "maximum development capacity" is 25,000 units. We already have about 11,300 which means additional of approx 13,000 units when our RHNA allocation is only 2,067. Why would be up zone, if that's what the city will be doing, for 5 times our RHNA allocation? People were shocked when we got or allocation of 2,067, imagine when the word gets out fully about the city contemplating allowing for 5 times that original number?!
The documents state that there will be only a 25% increase in population and units when in fact there will be a 100% increase. This is a major discrepancy and should be addresses with a honest, understandable and transparent answer.

If you are not aware of the new state law related to zoning which states you cannot down zone below your base of Jan 1, 2018, I suggest you have the city attorneys write you an opinion which can be shared with the public. Basically, any up zoning you do now, in particular adding 13,000 units can never be changed or down zoned. The law says that if you down zone, you have to up zone another area so there is no net loss of units.

Another area that the council should fully understand before voting on these documents is pertaining to the voter imposed height limit and prohibition on any more than a 5% parking variance. Today with these documents not approved, the height limit rules over density bonuses which are not allowed. If you approve these draft documents, then you are dismissing the voters intent when they set the height limit.

The 45' is a very objective standard and should not be dismissed lightly. If it was not very, very important, then why did the YIMBY lawsuit group require the city to put a 2 - 65
possible repeal on the ballot by Dec of 2024? I think there is hidden in these documents an end run around the voters in an attempt to make the height limit moot and move development along with approval of these documents now, in case the voters reject the repeal nest year.

With a little research I found out that usually there is a 3 year time period for cities to bring their zoning in compliance from Housing Element to General Plan. At the very least, there is a year period. Why was our city only given 120 days? This short time period shows that someone is not watching out for our city and not giving the residents a full accounting of what is in store for the future of SP and how approval of these documents as is, will fundamentally change the character of South Pasadena in the negative.

Thank you for your consideration of the residents future input, before any approval from the council of any of these documents.

Joanne Nuckols
56 year So Pas resident
2 - 66
From: Steve Koch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 12:24 PM
To: City Council Public Comment <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Comment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Council,
I am strongly opposed to the changes to the New General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan that are being proposed.

Is anyone working for the good of the citizens of South Pasadena anymore? These changes go FAR BEYOND what is being mandated by Sacramento and RHNA numbers, and would be detrimental to South Pasadena as a wonderful liveable oasis in the San Gabriel Valley.

The City Planning Commission needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a reasonable response to Sacramento that goes no further than what is mandated - Sacramento’s mandates are bad enough.

South Pasadena needs to retain a balance of residential and commercial properties to sustain itself. Proposing to eliminate Pavillions, Ralphs, Bristol Farms, Ace and the stores that surround them to make room for housing is outrageous.

We shouldn’t be planning for how to double the housing units and population of the city.

We shouldn’t be allowing the tripling of allowable densities to our medium and high density areas.

We shouldn’t be raising the maximum building height limits and number of allowable stories on residential buildings.

The City Planning staff is completely out of touch with the wants and needs of the residents of our city who came to South Pasadena, in large part, for it’s charm and small town feel. These are the very things that you are unwittingly destroying when you submit a proposal like this.

It’s my understanding that once zoning changes like these are implemeted that there’s no going back. These changes must be stopped and a more reasonable response to Sacramento must be sought.

Steve Koch
2 - 67
Mark Gallatin Letter
August 31, 2023

Page 102 ends

business?

Page 103 ends

assembly, meeting facilities and places of worship due to the potential for traffic, noise and other impacts?

Page 103 ends

from performing arts centers for theater under Cultural Institutions in the 3rd row of Section 4 of this table? The former requires a CUP while the latter is permitted by right.

Page 106 ends

greatest?

Page 108 ends

greatest?

Page 109 ends

Page 114 ends

Page 133 ends

Page 148 ends

Page 150 ends

Page 152 ends

Page 153 ends

Page 156 ends

historic buildings? Now is the best opportunity to see if the city will support vaults or interior placement of this kind of equipment.

Page 161 ends

“Building Access”.

Page 161 ends

Page 163 ends

Page 167 ends

neighborhood market/convenience store) but less than 15,000 sq. ft. (the minimum square footage for a supermarket) fall?

Page 171 ends

Page 176 ends

2 - 68
August 31, 2023
Dear City Council:

When the draft general plan is properly analyzed, the projected future growth of 2,775 housing units is understated by at least 3,082 units.

Table B3.2 of the draft general plan projects a total realistic capacity of 13,940 units for the planning designations listed in the table.1 A note under the table states that “The residential...numbers include existing development within South Pasadena.”
Table B3.3 then states a total planned capacity of 2,775 for all planning designations.2
According to Q1 in the FAQs, the planned capacity was calculated by subtracting the City's existing unit count from the projected realistic capacity stated in Table B3.2:

The 2020 count of existing residential units in South Pasadena was 11,186 (HE Table VI-23). Theoretical full build out based on zoning capacity is 24,570. When adjusted for likely redevelopment within the General Plan time frame, the projection is 13,940 units, including existing units. Thus, when the existing 11,186 units are subtracted, you arrive at the required Housing Element capacity of 2,067 plus a capacity buffer. 2 Table B3.3 uses different terminology for the parcels within the planning designations listed in Table B3.2. In particular, the Mixed-Use Core and Fair Oaks Corridor planning designations in Table B3.2 correlate to Ostrich Farm, Fair Oaks Avenue, Mission Street, Huntington Drive and Garfield Avenue, Huntington Drive and Fletcher Avenue, and Huntington Drive and Fremont Avenue in Table B3.3.
1 The Table B3.2 planning designations include Neighborhood Very Low, Neighborhood Low, Neighborhood Medium, Neighborhood High, Mixed-Use Core, and Fair Oaks Corridor. -1-
2 - 69
However, existing units in one planning designation cannot legitimately be subtracted from the realistic capacity of another planning designation to obtain a planned capacity total.

To illustrate, assume a Mixed-Use Core project in which 100 units will be built on a parcel with one existing unit.

After subtracting the single existing unit on the parcel (which will be replaced by one of the new units), there is a net addition of 99 units to the City’s housing inventory.

In this illustration, you could not subtract existing Neighborhood Low units located somewhere else (and whose continued existence would not be affected by the project) and say that the project net is something other than 99 units.

Table B3.3 and Q1 are using this invalid analysis in the aggregate.

To further illustrate, the Mixed-Use Core and Fair Oaks Corridor planning designations have the highest combined realistic capacity, with the lowest existing unit count.

According to Table B3.2, the Mixed-Use Core and Fair Oaks Corridor planning designations have a combined realistic capacity of 5,964 units.3 Most of the parcels within the two planning designations have 0 or 1 existing units, and the existing unit total is only 107.4
4 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element, Tables VI-50 and VI-51. Although Table VI-50 does not state a unit count, none of the listed Mixed-Use Core and Fair Oaks Corridor parcels should have any existing units given their current non-residential uses. 3 3,257 (Mixed Use Core) + 2,707 (Fair Oaks Corridor) = 5,964, see Table B3.2. -2-
2 - 70
If the combined realistic capacity for the Mixed-Use Core and Fair Oaks Corridor planning designations is 5,964 units, and the existing unit total is 107, then the combined planned capacity stated in Table B3.3 cannot possibly be less than 5,857 units.5
Yet, the combined planned capacity stated in Table B3.3 is 1,920,6 a number which requires the subtraction of 4,044 existing units from the combined realistic capacity of 5,964.

The calculation has not been explained and cannot be justified, as there is no plausible scenario in which 4,044 existing units could be replaced during Mixed-Use Core and Fair Oaks Corridor development.

To put it in perspective, the actual planned capacity of 5,857 units for the Mixed-Use Core and Fair Oaks Corridor planning designations is 3,082 more than the combined total of 2,775 stated in the same table for all planning designations.

Or, instead of a RHNA allocation of 2,067 plus a buffer of 708 units,7there is actually a RHNA allocation of 2,067 plus a buffer of 3,790 units within the Mixed Use Core and Fair Oaks Corridor planning designations alone.8 The City's rezoning plan goes too far and should be scaled back before the City Council takes further action.

Ed Elsner
(626) 233-1543
8 2,067 + 3,790 = 5,857.
7 2,067 + 708 = 2,775.
6 490 (Ostrich Farm) + 880 (Fair Oaks Avenue) + 350 (Mission Street) + 140 (Huntington Drive and Garfield Avenue) + 60 (Huntington Drive and Fremont Avenue) = 1,920, see Table B3.3. 5 5,964 (Realistic Capacity) - 107 (Existing Units) = 5,857 (Planned Capacity). -3-
2 - 71
September 1, 2023
Dear City Council:

Based on the information presented in the draft general plan, 6,203 tenants would be displaced by the anticipated redevelopment of the City’s medium and high density residential parcels.

The adopted housing element grossly understates the existing unit count for medium and high density residential parcels, making it difficult to estimate how many tenants would be displaced by the anticipated redevelopment.

For example, every high density residential parcel listed in Table VI-51 of the adopted housing element is erroneously identified as having 0 existing units, and many listed medium density residential parcels are erroneously identified as having only 0 or 1 units.1
However, the expected displacement of residential tenants can be quantified using the information provided in Tables B3.2 and B3.3 of the draft general plan.

According to the draft general plan, the combined realistic capacity for medium and high density residential parcels is projected to be 3,484 housing units.2 The combined planned capacity, calculated by subtracting existing units from realistic capacity, is 805 units.3
3 350 (Medium Density) + 455 (High Density) = 805 units, see Table B3.3 of the draft general plan. Existing units are subtracted from realistic capacity to account for units that will be replaced during redevelopment, and planned capacity represents the net addition of units to the City’s housing inventory, see Q1 of the August 21, 2023 FAQs. 2 1,610 (Neighborhood Medium) + 1,874 (Neighborhood High) = 3,484 units, see Table B3.2 of the draft general plan.
1 These and other errors in Table VI-51 (including a math error that resulted in a 2,641 unit understatement of the development capacity of listed parcels with a density greater than 50 units/acre) were brought to the City’s attention in late March 2023, but no corrections were made before the housing element was adopted by the City Council. -1-
2 - 72
Therefore, 2,679 existing units would be replaced by the anticipated development of the City’s medium and high density residential parcels.4 Development of a condominium parcel would require unanimous agreement by the individual owners, so few if any of the 2,679 units would be condominiums.

This means that the displacement impacts of redevelopment would fall squarely on tenants residing in apartments.

Assuming a vacancy rate of 5.5%,5 2,532 of the units would be occupied.

Assuming 2.45 persons per household,6the units would be occupied by 6,203 tenants.

The City’s population is 26,273,7 and tenants comprise 53.5% of the City’s population, or 14,056.

So, the draft general plan anticipates that 24% of the City’s current population, consisting of 44% of the City’s tenants, would be displaced by redevelopment of medium and high density residential parcels.

Quite frankly, the numbers are staggering.

Unfortunately, there was no meaningful disclosure of this before (or after) the housing element was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Ed Elsner
(626) 233-1543
7 2023 estimate from the California Department of Finance. 6 2023 estimate from the California Department of Finance. 5 As applied in the draft program EIR.
4 3,484 (Realistic Capacity) - 805 (Planned Capacity) = 2,679 (Existing Units) -2-
2 - 73
From: linda <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 11:56 PM
To: CDD <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan--Housing Element
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Commissioners,
I understand that the Housing Element in your proposed General Plan is driven by state mandates to address homelessness in our State.

Please consider, if you haven't already, the impact of potential residences being held for short-term housing (Air B&B, etal.) Enacting regulations that would release this inventory for longer-term housing would have minimal impact on existing infrastructure. Requiring such businesses to enter into 3 month agreements and setting appropriate annual licensing fees might have the desired effect.

Please also consider intentionally attracting senior housing to the more than 2000 new housing units proposed. Seniors would benefit from our small city offerings while helping us to grow our schools manageably. As they age and transportation options become more restrictive, they will appreciate that our shops and eateries and City services are walkable. Our Metro trains and buses would connect them to the greater metro area, and our Dial A Ride to their appointments and friends.

Moreover, to the extent the new residences have communal aspects, energy and water consumption can be expected to be less than the usual planning assumptions. Seniors will congregate to socialize, just as they currently do at our Senior Center.

A significant population of seniors are low-income and vulnerable without rent control protections. They would benefit from housing security. This housing plan is our opportunity to support our seniors in their golden years.

Thank you for receiving my humble comments,
Linda Kubo
2 - 74
ATTACHMENT 9
Public Comment Response Summary
2 - 75

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 76
General Plan/DTSP Public Comment Response Summary City Council Meeting 9/18/23

1. Ed Elsner: Letter dated 8/23/23
Issue
No. Description/Summary Response Notes
1a
"The City should begin the process of
amending the adopted housing element
without delay, in particular Table Vi-51 and
program 3.a…"
Action: Table VI-51 of the Housing Element will be revised. The City is aware of the issue. Only the Mixed Use Overlay is contemplated for a density of up to 70 units per acre. The RM zone would be 6.1-30 units per acre, and the RH zone would be 30.1-45 units per acre.

2. Gary Coyne; Letter Dated 8/28/23
Issue
No. Description/Summary Response Notes
2a
"Suddenly, without prior notice or
opportunity for the public to be heard on it,
a new and drastically different proposal is
apparently going to be presented to the
state, by which South Pasadena promises to
double the population of South Pasadena by
removing all of our major shopping sites
(including major grocery stores and our only
hardware store) and building multiple highrise buildings on our already-congested streets..."
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The General Plan does not propose to double the City's population. The General Plan provides development capacity to accommodate the 2,775 units required by the State. The General Plan anticipates a realistic buildout of 13,940 dwelling units, which includes the City's existing 11,156 dwelling units. While the General Plan directs growth into established commercial areas and major corridors near transit, the General Plan does not call for the demolition of existing shopping centers to be replaced by housing. The General Plan would allow property owners--at their own discretion and in response to market conditions--to use their land more efficiently. The Housing Element was adopted on May 30, 2023, and was the subject of substantial public discussions and meetings.

The development contemplated by the General Plan is consistent with the growth contemplated by the Housing Element. 2b
"Power outages are part of South Pasadena.

Despite anyone's intentions, our house goes
black multiple times in any year. How will
doubling the population affect our basic
grid? How will our limited water supply
service twice as many people? How much
will it cost us, and where will the money
come from, to pay for upgraded utilities,
police and fire service, schools?"
Comment Noted/No Action Required. A Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was prepared for the project. As part of that process, local utilities provided comments and feedback. The General Plan does not look to double the City's population, but rather seeks to accommodate the growth listed in the adopted Housing Element (2,775 new units). This growth is directed to major corridors, multifamily zones, and commercial areas with transit options in order to preserve the City's single-family residential areas to the greatest extent possible.

3. Patricia Rose; Letter Dated 8/29/23
Issue
No. Description/Summary Response Notes
3a
"How will increasing the RHNA unit demands
of 2,067 units to over 13,000 affect student
learning and achievement…Think carefully
before you increase the 2,067 units
demanded by the state to over 13,000 units
if you care about the education and future of
our students."
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The proposed General Plan does not propose to add 13,000 new dwelling units. The City's RHNA requirement is 2,067 units, and in order for the City's Housing Element to be eligible for State approval, the City had to add a buffer to that number, for a total of 2,775 new units. The current General Plan must accommodate the 2,775 additional units required by the state, and the General Plan estimates a reasonable buildout of 2,784 additional units. The anticipated buildout would be 13,940 units, which includes the City's existing 11,156 dwelling units (11,156 + 2,784 = 13,940). 2 1- 77

4. Gail Maltun; Letter Dated 8/29/23
Issue
No. Description/Summary Response Notes
4a
"…The only way to control how South
Pasadena looks and feels, and to retain a
sense of place, is to craft form-based codes
that are specific, and are carefully and deeply
thought out, for developments of all sizes,
from dense downtown buildings to the
'missing middle' on our residential streets..."
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) proposes to use a form-based code for the areas along Mission Street and Fair Oaks Avenue. While not a part of the General Plan project specifically, the City is also exploring objective development standards that will be applied to areas outside the DTSP. As the State takes further steps to encourage the production of housing, it is vitally important that the City have robust development codes to ensure future development meets the City's high standards. Form-based codes and objective design standards will work toward that objective. 4b
"…Create rules and appoint commission
members who will ensure that new
development enhances rather than detracts
from the beauty and livability of South
Pasadena…"
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The City is pursuing the option of bringing a town architect or other design professional onboard who can work with developers on non-discretionary projects to ensure they meet the City's high standards. Recent State regulations have constrained the City's ability to apply discretionary review to certain types of projects, increasing the importance of having form-based codes, objective design standards, along with qualified design professionals who can work with applicants to deliver the kinds of projects the City wants to see. 4c
"I understand that you are considering a new
contract for the golf course. The golf course,
along with the stables, make up over 30
acres and constitute our only available space
for development. We have no surplus
shopping malls or light industrial space to
redevelop..."
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The management of the golf course is not part of the General Plan discussion and is not a site identified for housing in the Housing Element. The golf course and stables represent valuable open space. As with single-family neighborhoods, the General Plan currently under consideration seeks to preserve open space, hillside areas, and single-family neighborhoods by directing growth into existing commercial corridors along major arterials and multifamily areas. This does not preclude the City from considering reuse of the golf course in the future. 4d
"I am attaching some photos on the
following page illustrating 4 and 5 story
buildings, residential over retail, that show
what is possible with good design that is
sensitive to the surrounding community…"
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The photos provided are consistent with the type of projects and architecture envisioned by the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.

5. Joanne Nuckols; Letter Dated 8/29/23
Issue
No. Description/Summary Response Notes
5a
"…there has been no public meetings to
explain and educate what is in the
documents since the drafts were released in
July. Why is there no public education for
input as required by HCD? The draft GP has 5
listed approach to K. CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
none has been fulfilled to any satisfaction in
the last three months..."
Comment Noted/No Action Required. As stated in the staff reports for the August 8 and August 21, 2023, Planning Commission meetings, the major civic engagement/public outreach for the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) was conducted in the 2017-2019 time frame. The General Plan/DTSP update process was placed on hold in 2019 in order for the City to address its substantial RHNA allocation, which led to numerous public meetings and outreach between 2019 and the adoption of the Housing Element on May 30, 2023. The City was the subject of a lawsuit in 2022 because it did not have an adopted Housing Element by the State deadline of October 15, 2021. The Court Order that resolved the lawsuit stipulated a tight timeline for the City to adopt the rezoning necessary to implement certain Housing Element programs, which in turn created a tight timeline to adopt the new General Plan and DTSP. Public meetings were held at the War Memorial Building on June 3rd and June 17th, where members of the public were given updated information before the project proceeded to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission considered the item on August 8th and August 21st, along with an additional meeting to discuss the necessary rezoning on August 23rd. The City received 25 comment letters on the project and multiple residents spoke on the issue during the public hearing. The City Council conducted a Study Session on this project on August 29th, with numerous residents speaking on the project. The public will have additional opportunities to comment at future City Council meetings scheduled for September 18th and September 27th.
2 2- 78
5b
"Why has the information about drastic
upzoning been withheld/buried in the
document? The full 'maximum development
capacity' is 25,000 units. We already have
about 11,300 which means additional of
approx 13,000 units when our RHNA
allocation is only 2,067..."
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The General Plan contemplates a total buildout of 13,940 units. This includes the City's existing 11,156 residential units, for a total of 2,784 new units (13,940 - 11,156 = 2,784). These numbers accommodate the required RHNA units and State buffer (2,775 units). While no action will be taken specifically on account of this comment, the Planning Commission, at its August 21, 2023, meeting, directed staff to revise the General Plan Capacity table so that it is easier to understand (Table B3.2, page 62). The table will be revised to better convey the information and to reduce confusion. 5c
"If you are not aware of the new state law
related to zoning which states you cannot
down zone below your base of Jan 1, 2018, I
suggest you have the city attorneys write our
an opinion which can be shared with the
public. Basically, any up zoning you do now,
in particular adding 13,000 units can never
be changed or down zoned..."
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The land use designations proposed in the General Plan are consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element. State law has made it more challenging to down-zone properties. Senate Bill (SB) 330 states that cities cannot down-zone land below densities that were in place on January 1, 2018, unless that density is accommodated elsewhere in the City. The General Plan would accommodate the additional units contemplated by the Housing Element and the City does not anticipate the need to downzone land in the future. The City Attorney spoke on this issue at the recent City Council Study Session on August 29th, and also at the Planning Commission meeting on August 21st. 5d
"Another area that the council should fully
understand before voting on these
documents is pertaining to the voter
imposed height limit and prohibition on any
more than a 5% parking variance Today with
these documents not approved, the height
limit rules over density bonuses which are
not allowed..."
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The City Attorney has provided direction to staff that Density Bonus concessions and waivers do, in fact, allow eligible projects to exceed the City's 45-foot building height limit and other development standards. Staff has been transparent on this issue and the topic was discussed in the staff reports for the August 8 and August 21, 2023, Planning Commission meetings. This topic was also discussed at the City Council Study Session on August 29, 2023.

Density Bonus language appears in both the General Plan and the DTSP. State Density Bonus law supersedes local development standards and the City has approved buildings taller than 45' in keeping with the State Density Bonus concessions and waivers. 5e
"With a little research I found out that
usually there is a 3 year time period for cities
to bring their zoning in compliance from
Housing Element to General Plan…Why was
our city only given 120 days?"
Comment Noted/No Action Required. As stated in the response to Comment 7a above, the City was the subject of a lawsuit in 2022 because the City did not have an adopted Housing Element. The Court Order that resulted from the lawsuit provided 120 days for the City to adopt the required rezoning in support of the Housing Element. This also impacted the General Plan adoption process because the zoning contemplated by the Housing Element could not be adopted without the General Plan being updated as well, as the City's Zoning Ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan. Despite the expedited timeline, the City is on track to meet the 120-day deadline required by the Court Order.

6. Steve Koch; Letter Dated 8/29/23
Issue
No. Description/Summary Response Notes
6a
"…These changes go far beyond what is
being mandated by Sacramento and RHNA
numbers…We shouldn't be planning for how
to double the housing units and population
of the city…"
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The General Plan contemplates a total buildout of 13,940 units. This includes the City's existing 11,156 residential units, for a total of 2,784 new units (13,940 - 11,156 = 2,784). These numbers accommodate the required RHNA units and State buffer (2,775 units). While no action will be taken specifically on account of this comment, the Planning Commission, at its August 21, 2023, meeting, directed staff to revise the General Plan Capacity table so that it is easier to understand (Table B3.2, page 62). The table will be revised to better convey the information and to reduce confusion. 6b
"South Pasadena needs to retain a balance of
residential and commercial properties to
sustain itself. Proposing to eliminate
Pavilions, Ralphs, Bristol Farms, Ace, and the
stores that surround them to make room for
housing is outrageous."
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The General Plan would allow residential development in existing commercial zones. The intent of this policy is two fold: to preserve the established single-family neighborhoods and to better utilize land in the City's commercial corridors. The General Plan and DTSP do not call for the demolishing of commercial centers, but the plans would allow property owners to do more with the land they already have. Adding residential uses above shopping and services, particularly in areas served by transit, encourages walking and reduced dependence on automobiles. 2 3- 79
6c
"We shouldn't be raising the maximum
building height limits and number of
allowable stories on residential buildings."
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The Housing Element that was adopted by the City Council on May 30, 2023, requires the City to bring a ballot measure before the voters in 2024 to revisit the City's 45-foot building height limit. In the meantime, the City's height limit remains in place. The only way a building can exceed 45 feet in height is if the project is eligible for the concessions and waivers offered under State Density Bonus regulations. The General Plan directs growth into commercial areas and areas served by public transportation. This is the trade-off the City is making to preserve existing single-family neighborhoods to the greatest extent possible. 6d
"The City Planning staff is completely out of
touch with the wants and needs of the
residents of our city who came to South
Pasadena, in large part, for its charm and
small town feel…"
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The General Plan directs growth away from established single-family neighborhoods--the neighborhoods South Pasadena is known for--and steers that growth to major arterials and areas served by public transit. Multiple General Plan policies support walkable communities, pedestrians, bicyclists, and preserving established neighborhoods. The General Plan is the result of extensive community engagement and reflects the needs and vision of the community.
6e
"It's my understanding that once zoning
changes like these are implemented that
there's no going back."
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The land use designations proposed in the General Plan are consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element. State law has made it more challenging to down-zone properties. Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) states that cities cannot down-zone land below densities that were in place on January 1, 2018, unless that density is accommodated elsewhere in the City. The General Plan would accommodate the additional units contemplated by the Housing Element and the City does not anticipate the need to downzone land in the future.

7. Mark Gallatin; Letter Dated 8/31/23
Issue
No. Description/Summary Response
7a
DTSP p. 102, Table C3.1 Personal Services
(restricted): Does the Municipal Code permit
a stand-alone massage business?
Comment Noted/No Action Required. SPMC Division 36.230.030 (Commercial Land Use Requirements) Table 2-4 requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Massage Establishments in the CG (General Commercial) zone. Such uses are not permitted in the CO (Commercial Office) or BP (Business Park) zones. 7b
DTSP p. 103, Table C3.1, Public Assembly,
Education, Recreation: Why isn't a CUP
required for these types of public assembly,
meeting facilities, and places of worship due
to the potential for traffic, noise, and other
impacts? Action: Table C3.1 will be updated to require a CUP for "Public assembly, meeting facility, place of worship" uses. 7c
DTSP p. 103, Table C3.1, Public Assembly,
Education, Recreation: How do recreational
and entertainment uses differ from
performing arts centers for theater under
Cultural Institutions in 3rd row of Section 4
of this table? The former requires a CUP
while the latter is permitted by right.

Comment Noted/No Action Required. While staff does not recommend changing the Table C3.1 at this time due to the condensed timeline, this is a valid issue that can be addressed in a future DTSP amendment. The City anticipates the DTSP to be a living document that will be regularly updated to address community needs and concerns.
7d
DTSP p. 106 and p. 107 Encroachment
Tables: Why not allow awnings on south or
west-facing elevations where sun exposure is
greatest?
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The Encroachment Tables on pages 106 and 108 refer to encroachment into required setbacks. Since no "Side Yard" setback is required, there is no need to allow for encroachments. Encroachments are permitted in "Side Street" setbacks, which are defined as 0-15 feet. 7e
DTSP p. 109, Section F.6: Does "backing into"
mean abutting or adjacent to? Define
"fabric."
Comment Noted/No Action Required. While the wording of this section could be better stated, the intent of the section may be sufficiently inferred from the context:
for lots in the Fair Oaks corridor that back up against single-family land uses (the "single-family fabric" as stated in the document), building height may only exceed 45 feet in the first 75% of the lot. This requirement may not apply to projects that qualify for waivers and concessions under State Density Bonus regulations, since those incentives supersede local development regulations. In the future, however, should additional height be allowed through a ballot initiative, this section would play a key role in stepping down the more intense land uses along Fair Oaks Avenue to lower-intensity development where single-family homes are located immediately behind a lot in the Fair Oaks Avenue zone of the DTSP. This would apply to single-family lots that immediately abut a Fair Oaks lot or that is located across an alley.

While staff does not intend to revise the language at this time due to the tight timeframe, this is an issue that can be addressed in a future DTSP amendment. The City anticipates the DTSP to be a living document that will be regularly updated to address community needs and concerns. 2 4- 80
7f
DTSP p. 114, Section A.5 (Single-family
residence parking requirement): Would
uncovered parking be permitted?
Comment Noted/No Action Required: Under the proposed DTSP, enclosed or covered parking spaces would be recommended for any single-family home. This is consistent with typical single-family home design. It is important to note that the City cannot require parking in areas near major transit stops, in accordance with State law.
7g
DTSP p. 133. Section G.4.c (design standards
for Shopfront frontage types): How are
security gates being addressed?
Comment Noted/No Action Required. This section is silent to security gates. The standards listed refer to accordion-style doors or windows that would allow a commercial tenant space to be opened up to the sidewalk or other public space. Issues of security gates or other coverings would need to be addressed during the design review process on a case-by-case basis, and would follow the same process/methodology currently used in the City. 7h
DTSP p. 148, Figure C8.1 (Tree Species Map):

Should consideration be given to tree
selection based on varying parkway widths?
Comment Noted/No Action Required. Staff is not recommending further analysis on the Tree Species Map due to the tight timeline required for plan approval. The City anticipates the DTSP to be a living document that will be regularly updated to address community needs and concerns. This is certainly an issue that could be revisited at a later time if the prescribed tree species are not practical. Page 147 contains language that states "Existing context, street characteristics, and site attributes should be considered when selecting street tree species" (Section C8.1 Landscape Standards, Subsection C.iii) which also speaks to the issue. 7i
DTSP p. 150, Section D: There is no mention
of requiring drought tolerant and/or native
species.

Comment Noted/No Action required. While the Specific Plan does not mention native plants on page 150, native species are mentioned on page 147 under Section C8.1 Landscape Standards subsection A. Other regulations pertaining to drought tolerant and/or native species would also apply. 7j
DTSP p. 152, Section C9.2 Sign Types: Signs
on historic buildings require Cultural
Heritage Commission approval. Action: Section C9.1 Sign Standards, Subsection 9.1B.3 will be revised to add "c. Signs on historic buildings shall require approval by the Cultural Heritage Commission." 7k
DTSP p. 152, Section C9.1 Wall Signs: Is
illumination required in all cases?
Comment Noted/No Action Required: Illumination is not required. If a sign is to be illuminated, the illumination must be external, not internal. While staff does not recommend revising the text at this time due to the short adoption timeline, this section can be revised for clarity at a later time. 7l
DTSP p. 152, Section C9.1 Awning/Canopy
Signs: Is the feature area a requirement? Comment Noted/No Action Required: The "Feature Area" is not a requirement. An Awning/Canopy Sign does not need to include logos. 7m
DTSP p. 153, Section A.2 Wall Sign: What is
meant by "features?"
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The DTSP does not specifically define "Features;" however, based on language under the Awning/Canopy Sign section, a "logo" is referenced as a feature. While staff does not recommend revising the text at this time, this is an issue that could be refined in a future DTSP amendment. 7n
DTSP p. 156, Section C9.3.c.iii: What about
screening of Fire Department connections,
standpipes, etc., especially on historic
buildings? Now is the best opportunity to see
if the city will support vaults or interior
placement of this kind of equipment.

Comment Noted/No Action Required. This section would apply to mechanical equipment and other items (garbage receptacles, loading areas, etc.), and would presumably apply to additional appurtenances such as Fire Department infrastructure to the extent those items can be screened. Building and Fire Codes would still apply, and such items may be required to be visibly and accessible. 7o
DTSP p. 161, Section C11.1: Consider
changing "Access, Building" to "Walk-up
Access" to avoid confusion with "Building
Access."
Comment Noted/No Action Required. Given the short timeline to adopt the DTSP, staff is not recommending text changes to non-critical sections of the document.

With that said, staff supports amending the DTSP post-adoption to include this change and others that would result in a more clearly worded document. 7p
DTSP p. 161, Section C11.1: Can "Accessory
Structure" be combined with "Building
Accessory?" Action: "Building Accessory" is redundant to "Accessory Building" and will be deleted from the document. 7q
DTSP p. 163, Section C11.1: Under "Story" do
mezzanines need to be defined?
Comment Noted/No Action Required. No changes to the text are proposed. A "Story" is defined as a "habitable level within a building from finished floor to finished ceiling." A mezzanine typically refers to an additional level within a building story that is open to below, accommodating a portion of a story but not creating a full building floor. While not critical to the adoption of the DTSP, staff supports amending the DTSP post-adoption to include this change and others that would result in a more clearly worded document.
7r
DTSP p. 167, Section C11.2: Where does a
market greater than 5,000 sq. ft. but less
than 15,000 sq. ft. fall?
Comment Noted/No Action Required. While staff does not recommend changing Section C11.1 (Definitions of General Terms) at this time due to the condensed timeline, this is a valid issue that can be addressed in a future DTSP amendment. The City anticipates the DTSP to be a living document that will be regularly updated to address community needs and concerns.
7s
DTSP p. 171: The Mills Act should be added
back in among local programs. Action: The Mills Act will be added back into the list of local programs. 7t
DTSP p. 176, Action A3.2b: Consider seeking
voter approval to raise the 45 foot height
limit to 50 feet.

Comment Noted/No Action Required. Housing Element Program 2.n requires the City to bring an initiative to the voters in 2024 to consider raising the building height limit for parcels that have residential densities great than 50 dwelling units per acre. Initiative language has not yet been drafted and will have to be approved by the City Council before being placed on the ballot.
2 5- 81

8. Ed Elsner; Letter Dated 8/31/23
Issue
No. Description/Summary Response
8a
"When the draft general plan is properly
analyzed, the projected future growth of
2,775 housing units is understated by at least
3,082 housing units…"
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The General Plan contemplates a total buildout of 13,940 units. This includes the City's existing 11,156 residential units, for a total of 2,784 new units (13,940 - 11,156 = 2,784). These numbers accommodate the required RHNA units and State buffer (for a total of 2,775 units). While no action will be taken specifically on account of this comment, the Planning Commission, at its August 21, 2023, meeting, directed staff to revise the General Plan Capacity table so that it is easier to understand (Table B3.2, page 62). The table will be revised to better convey the information and to reduce confusion. 8b
Capacity issues regarding Table B3.2 (page
62), Table B3.3 (page 63), and Housing
Element Tables VI-50 and VI-51.

Comment Noted/No Action Required. The General Plan contemplates a total buildout of 13,940 units. This includes the City's existing 11,156 residential units, for a total of 2,784 new units (13,940 - 11,156 = 2,784). These numbers accommodate the required RHNA requirement of 2,775 units. Table B3.2 will be revised to better convey the information contained therein, and the City's realistic development capacity over the life of the General Plan. Table B3.3 (Projected Growth by Place Types) contains information on where the City speculates the RHNA growth would reasonably occur during the planning period. Question 1 in the Frequently Asked Questions document states "The full build out number is entirely theoretical." The City is involved in planning for the housing units but does not have a hand in the free market and in ensuring the units get developed. Table B3.2 references realistic development capacity whereas Table B3.3 references the City's best guess as to where those units might be located. The City is obligated to plan for future growth to accommodate its RHNA requirement. The capacity provided in the draft General Plan accomplishes this objective.

9. Ed Elsner; Letter Dated 9/1/23
Issue
No. Description/Summary Response
9a
"Based on the information presented in the
draft general plan, 6,203 tenants would be
displaced by the anticipated redevelopment
of the City's medium and high density
residential parcels…So, the draft general plan
anticipates that 24% of the City's current
population, consisting of 44% of the City's
tenants, would be displaced by
redevelopment of medium and high density
residential parcels."
Comment Noted/No Action Required. The General Plan is a planning and policy document, not a development document or entitlement that approves new projects.

The purpose of the General Plan is provide policies that guide development into those areas of the City that are most appropriate for accommodating additional housing units and commercial space. Since the City does not know what individual property owners plan to do with their properties, it would be speculative to assume specific details that future growth would involve beyond the general and broad analysis included in the project's PEIR; the number of hypothetical scenarios is infinite.

The best the City can do at the General Plan level is to thoughtfully direct future development toward those corridors and areas that are best able to handle the growth. It will be the private sector that will decide which properties will redevelop, and those decisions are largely beyond the City's control.

10. Linda Kubo; Letter Dated 9/6/23
Issue
No. Description/Summary Response
10a
Please consider the impact of potential
residences being held for short term housing
(Air B&B, et al). Enacting regulations that
would release this inventory for longer-term
housing would have minimal impact on
existing infrastructure… Comment Noted/No Action Required. This comment has been included in the information provided to the City Council. 2 6- 82
10b
Please also consider intentionally attracting
senior housing to the more than 2,000 new
housing units proposed. Seniors would
benefit from our small city offerings…a
significant population of seniors are lowincome and vulnerable without rent control protections. They would benefit from
housing security. This housing plan is our
opportunity to support our seniors in their
golden years. Comment Noted/No Action Required. This comment has been included in the information provided to the City Council. 2 7- 83

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 84
ATTACHMENT 10
Resolution P.C. 23-05
2 - 85

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 86
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 23-05

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA,

CALIFORNIA, CERTIFY THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (PEIR) (SCH NO. 2018011050) FOR THE 2023

GENERAL PLAN AND DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, AND

HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS, ADOPT

REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.

WHEREAS, Sections 65300 et. seq. of the California Government Code requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term, General Plan for the physical development of land within its jurisdiction and Sphere of Influence; and WHEREAS, in strategic planning sessions in 2014 and 2015 the City Council identified the need to update the General Plan and the Mission Street Specific Plan (Project); and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2017, the City Council directed staff to proceed with a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the General Plan Update and an expanded and updated Mission Street Specific Plan (now known as the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP)) project; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the proposed project were reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et. seq.,) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 1500, et. seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”); and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, the City of South Pasadena is the lead agency and the City Council is the decision-making body for the Project (as defined herein), with the Planning Commission being a recommending body for the Project; and
WHEREAS, A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated to required agencies and interested parties on January 18, 2018, and a Scoping Meeting was conducted on February 5, 2018; and
WHEREAS, Substantial changes to project assumptions were necessary based on the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligation, and that such changes required a Recirculated Notice of Preparation (RNOP) to be issued on April 20, 2021, and a subsequent Scoping Meeting was conducted on May 3, 2021; and
2 - 87
General Plan Update CEQA Resolution P.C. Resolution No. 23-05

Page 2 of 3 ends

WHEREAS, Consultation with local Native American Tribes was offered in letters sent on April 21, 2021, where one Tribe, The Gabrieleño/Tongva Tribe requested consultation which was concluded on June 10, 2021; and WHEREAS, on May 30, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the Housing Element for the period of 2021 through 2029, wherein the Housing Element was adopted, providing the City with 120 days to rezone necessary properties in support of the Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the project studied in the Draft PEIR was revised to also include various Housing Element program implementation actions including, but not limited to, rezoning actions and amendment of the City’s inclusionary housing and density bonus ordinances (collectively the General Plan Update, the DTSP adoption, and the Housing Element implementation actions as fully described in the PEIR constitute the “Project” for CEQA purposes); and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2023, the Draft PEIR was released for public comment; and
WHEREAS, based on the analysis presented in the Program Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project, and as more thoroughly described therein, implementation of the proposed Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts after implementation of feasible mitigation measures:

Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Population and Housing; and Table ES-1 therein presents a summary of significant environmental impacts identified in the PEIR; Mitigation Measures (MMs) that reduce any significant impacts; and the level of significance of each impact after mitigation. Significant irreversible environmental changes and growth-inducing impacts are addressed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations of the PEIR; and WHEREAS, the Project was the subject of a duly-noticed Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on August 8, 2023, and said Public Hearing was continued to August 21, 2023, wherein the Planning Commission received a presentation from staff, considered the staff report, public testimony, the Draft PEIR, and Commission discussion on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is based is in the custody of the Department of Community Development, 1424 Mission Street, South Pasadena, California, 91030; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed the PEIR in draft form; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
2 - 88
General Plan Update CEQA Resolution P.C. Resolution No. 23-05

Page 3 of 3 ends

Laura Dahl, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council find, in its independent judgment, that the PEIR for the Project identifies and discloses Project-specific impacts and cumulative Project impacts.

SECTION 2: The Planning Commission, based on its review of the Draft PEIR, hereby recommends that the City Council review and consider, in its independent judgment, the Final PEIR (SCH 2018011050), and , certify a Final PEIR for the Project, adopt required findings of fact, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 21st day of August, 2023. ________________________________

I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing Resolution No. 23-05 was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South Pasadena, California, at a special meeting held on the 21st day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Dahl, Padilla, Barthakur, Lesak, Swanborn
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:
_______________________________
Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk
________________________
Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk
_______________________________
David Snow, Assistant City Attorney
2 - 89

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 90
ATTACHMENT 11
Resolution P.C. 23-06
2 - 91

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
2 - 92
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 23-06

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE 2023 GENERAL PLAN AND

THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A,

EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, AND EXHIBIT D, AND RESCIND THE
MISSION STREET SPECIFIC PLAN.

WHEREAS, Sections 65580 et. seq. of the California Government Code requires each city and county to periodically prepare and update its Housing Element in its General Plan. City of South Pasadena received the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers from the Southern California Association of Government in 2019 and started to updating the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2022, the City of South Pasadena was sued by Californians for Homeownership for non-compliance with State housing Law for failing to have adopted a compliant Housing Element by October 15, 2021 (Californians for Homeownership v. City of South Pasadena), LASC Case Nos. 22STCP01388 & 22STCP01161); and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2022, the City entered into a Settlement Agreement with Californians for Homeownership to resolve the lawsuit, and that the Settlement Agreement committed the City to a number of actions, including but not limited to: completing the necessary rezoning to support the Housing Element within 120 days of the adoption of the Housing Element; and addition of a program to seek, through voter approval, the removal of the City’s existing 45-foot height limit for at least any parcel identified in the Housing Element for which the base density is anticipated to exceed 50 dwelling units per acre; and
2 - 93
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan P.C. Resolution No. 23-06

Page 2 of 6 ends

WHEREAS, on August 19, 2022, the Settlement Agreement was adopted as the Court Order and committed the City to adopting a housing element certified by or eligible for certification by HCD no later than May 31, 2023; and WHEREAS, on May 30, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the Draft Housing Element. After hearing public testimony on the project, considering the staff report, staff presentation, and Council discussion, in keeping with the stipulations of the Court Order, the City Council adopted the Housing Element, thereby commencing the 120-day period in which the City must adopt changes to the Zoning Ordinance to support the Housing Element and its programs; and
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2023, and June 17, 2023, public workshops on the General Plan and DTSP were held wherein the community received a presentation and provided input on the Project; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, the Draft General Plan and DTSP were released for public comments; and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued to the Public Hearing to August 21, 2023, wherein the Planning Commission received a staff presentation, considered the staff report, public testimony, Planning Commission discussion, and all other materials and evidence, whether written or oral; and
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was prepared for the Project, including related Housing Element implementation actions, and the Planning Commission considered the Draft PEIR and at a duly noticed Public Hearing that commenced on August 8, 2023 and continued on August 21, 2023, through Resolution No. P.C. 23-05, recommended the City Council of the City of South Pasadena certify the final PEIR, adopt required findings of fact, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE,
DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: The above recitals are hereby declared to be true and correct and are incorporated herein as findings of the South Pasadena Planning Commission.

SECTION 2: Based upon substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Hearing, including public testimony and written and 2 - 94
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan P.C. Resolution No. 23-06

Page 3 of 6 ends

oral staff reports, and the environmental documentation, the Planning Commission finds:

A. All necessary Public Hearings and opportunities for public testimony and comment have been conducted in compliance with applicable law; B. That the environmental impacts of the Project have been adequality analyzed and addressed, and that the Planning Commission, through Resolution P.C. 23-05, has recommended that the City Council certify and adopt the PEIR prepared for the Project.

1. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan; The proposed General Plan update is internally consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element that was adopted on May 30, 2023. The current General Plan that was adopted in 1998 is not internally consistent with the recently adopted Housing Element. The Housing Element is one of the elements required by State law. Therefore, adopting an updated General Plan that implements the policies and programs of the 2021-2029 Housing Element would make the documents internally consistent. Therefore, the Planning Commission can make this finding in support of the Project.

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or general welfare of the City; The General Plan Update would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or general welfare of the City because it would achieve internal consistency, including with the adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element. The General Plan Update also reflects substantial public comment, supporting a vision that was created by South Pasadena residents and community stakeholders. The General Plan will guide future growth of the City, and its goals, policies, and actions will support the health and safety of residents. Two chapters of the General Plan, Our Safe Community and Our Healthy Community, specifically address the safety and health of City residents. The General Plan goals, policies, and actions further support the convenience and general welfare of the City by preserving existing single-family neighborhoods and focusing growth into specific areas where residents will have access to services and public transportation. The General Plan supports mixed-use, walkable 2 - 95
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan P.C. Resolution No. 23-06

Page 4 of 6 ends

neighborhoods, and provides the development capacity to accommodate projected future growth along with the housing programs identified in the Housing Element. Therefore, the Planning Commission can make this finding.

The General Plan applies to the entire City of South Pasadena and would implement the policies and programs of the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

As stated above, the Planning Commission can make all of the necessary findings listed in SPMC Chapter 36.620.070(A) to recommend the City Council adopt the new General Plan.

SECTION 4: SPECIFIC PLAN FINDINGS. Pursuant to SPMC Section

36.440.060, the City Council may adopt a specific plan only if it finds that:

1. The proposed plan is in conformance with the actions, goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan and other adopted goals and policies of the City.

The proposed DTSP is consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, policies, and programs of both the proposed General plan and adopted Housing Element. The DTSP envisions additional housing units and nonresidential development potential within the City’s urban core, and supports growth in commercial corridors and higher-density residential areas near the Metro A Line station and bus routes. Specifically, the DTSP would implement the following Housing Element programs: Program 2.a Provide Technical Assistance for Projects with Affordable Housing; Program 3.a Rezone and Re-designate Sites to Meet RHNA; Program 3.b Mixed-Use Developments and Adaptive Re-Use; Program 3.n Zoning Changes; and Program 4.e Universal Design. Given the DTSP is internally consistent with the proposed General Plan and adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element, therefore, the Planning Commission can make this finding.

The DTSP also satisfies the requirements listed in SPMC Chapter 36.440.050(A-C), that requires environmental review, a staff report, and public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. As such, the Planning Commission can 2 - 96
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan P.C. Resolution No. 23-06

Page 5 of 6 ends

make all of the applicable findings to recommend the City Council approve the Project, and rescind the MSSP upon the DTSP taking effect.

SECTION 5: Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission recommends:

A. That the City Council approve the Project and adopt the General Plan update, thereby making the General Plan internally consistent with the adopted 2021- 2029 Housing Element. The dwelling units and non-residential development contemplated by the General Plan would be accommodated in the proposed Downtown Specific Plan and other areas of City that will be rezoned consistent with programs identified in the Housing Element. The General Plan will serve as one of the City’s guiding documents, and its goals, policies, and actions will direct the City’s growth and operations through 2040, the estimated lifespan of the General Plan (Exhibit A with modifications as set forth in Exhibit B).

B. That the City Council approve and adopt the Downtown Specific Plan and rescind the Mission Street Specific Plan (MSSP), which is consistent with the proposed General Plan and adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element, and that once adopted, the Downtown Specific Plan will supersede and replace the Mission Street Specific Plan (MSSP) and that all references to the MSSP in the applicable South Pasadena Municipal Code (SPMC) sections shall be interpreted as references to the DTSP (Exhibit C with modifications as set forth in Exhibit D).

SECTION 6: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 2 - 97
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan P.C. Resolution No. 23-06

Page 6 of 6 ends

Laura Dahl, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 21st day of August, 2023. ________________________________

I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing Resolution No. 23-06 was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South Pasadena, California, at a special meeting held on the 21st day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Dahl, Padilla, Barthakur, Lesak, Swanborn
NOES:

ABSENT:

FROM:

City Council
Agenda Report
September 18, 2023
Armine Chaparyan, City Manager ~
ITEM NO.
--
PREPARED BY: Angelica Frausto-Lupo, Community Development Director Alison Becker, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director Robert (Dean) Flores, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:

Recommendation
Proposed amendments to South Pasadena Municipal Code
(SPMC) Chapter 36 (Zoning) and Zoning Map related to
increased density by rezoning the existing Focused Area Overlay zone to Mixed-Use Overlay zone and increase density in the certain residential zoning districts in compliance with the updated General Plan and the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element
It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive public testimony on the project, and continue the Public Hearing to September 27, 2023, at which time the Council would consider introducing an Ordinance to:

1. Amend certain South Pasadena Municipal Code Sections pertaining to rezoning of properties consistent with the General Plan update and the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element which will do the following:
a. Add Section 36.230.050 (Mixed-Use Overlay Development Standards) for the newly established Mixed-Use Overlay District;
b. Amend Section 36.250.340 (Focus Area Overlay District), to eliminate the Focus Overlay District and replace it with the newly established Mixed-Use Overlay;
c. Increase density in the RM, RH, and Mixed-Use Overlay Districts in compliance with the Housing Element Programs; and
d. Amend other Code Sections relating to ancillary changes to the SPMC regarding reference to the new Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP), adoption of the new Zoning Map, other and minor changes to the Residential and Commercial zoning district standards in relation to the rezoning.

ZTA: Rezoning & Increased Density
September 18, 2023

Page 2 of 12 ends

Executive Summary
Certain Zoning Text Amendments must be adopted in order to comply with the Court Order that resolved the Housing Element lawsuit between the City and Californians for Homeownership, Inc. The proposed Zone Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment would increase density in certain areas of the City, establish the Mixed-Use Overlay zone, and update the City’s Zoning Map accordingly. The revisions are directly tied to Housing Element programs.

Background
The comprehensive General Plan/Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) Update is being undertaken by the City to strengthen its commitment to protecting the characteristics that make South Pasadena a desirable place to live, in the context of the constraints associated with significant changes in state law, particularly with respect to housing. The proposed General Plan and DTSP reflect an understanding of the community’s current goals, address continued growth pressures in the San Gabriel Valley and the demand for more diverse mobility and housing choices, and respond to evolving regional and environmental issues. The General Plan/DTSP Updates serve as the City’s guiding documents, providing the basis and policy framework for decision-makers. These documents provide direction regarding the physical development, resource conservation, and character of the City, and establish a realistic, non-residential (commercial) development capacity for the City.

The 2021–2029 Housing Element serves as the policy guide for decision-making regarding residential development, and demonstrates how the City intends to comply with State housing legislation and regional requirements. The Housing Element and its associated programs would accommodate a maximum potential of 2,775. The additional number of units reflects a buffer of 708 units above the City’s RHNA obligation. This buffer was required by HCD and provides additional housing capacity in the event some of the housing sites or programs do not produce the anticipated number of units.

Full buildout of the Housing Element inventory would generate 6,882 potential additional residents in South Pasadena through 2040, along with 1,978 potential jobs; however, the actual number will likely be less than predicted as these numbers represent the upper limit to the City’s growth potential. The General Plan, of which the Housing Element is one component, must be internally consistent, thus other elements of the General Plan have been revised to reflect the revised population and housing goals listed in the 2021- 2029 Housing Element. Without large tracts of undeveloped land to work with, the City had to find a way to absorb the projected growth within its current built environment. Some growth may be accommodated in established neighborhoods through Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or other State legislation that allows for additional by-right units on singlefamily lots, but even so, the City had to find ways to increase density in developed areas, preferably in commercial corridors located near high quality public transportation.

As a reminder, the Housing Element was adopted on May 30, 2023, in conjunction with an Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 3 - 2
ZTA: Rezoning & Increased Density
September 18, 2023

Page 3 of 12 ends

65759. The proposed General Plan Update and DTSP are consistent with the adopted Housing Element. On August 8, 2023, the Planning Commission directed City staff to prepare a resolution recommending a Zone Text Amendment to rezone certain commercial properties in the City to implement the General Plan and Housing Element implementation efforts by increasing density. Additionally, there will be increased density in the Residential Medium (RM) and Residential High (RH) zoning districts to accommodate the City’s RHNA obligation, pursuant to Housing Element program 3.a.

City Council Study Session
On August 29, 2023, the amendments were introduced to the City Council in a Study Session. Prior to the Study Session, the City Council received the proposed amendments and background information from the Planning Commission. During the Study Session, the City Council received testimony from the public, a staff presentation, and discussed the proposed amendments. No action was taken during the Study Session.

Discussion
The proposed Zone Text Amendment will implement the Housing Element’s goal of increased density. More specifically, it will increase density in certain zoning districts as well as establish new development standards to meet this goal. According to Housing Element goal 3.0, the City shall “provide opportunities to increase housing production.” Further, programs 3.a (Rezone and Redesignate Sites to meet RHNA) and 3.n (Zoning Changes), require the City to increase density in multi-family residential zones and commercial zones, and to remove subjective development standards for multifamily/mixed-use developments, respectively. As such, the proposed Zone Text Amendment will do the following to implement the aforementioned Housing Element programs:
• New Zone Text Amendment Standards for Increased Density In order to implement the new changes into the Zoning Code, the City hired MIG (Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman) to prepare the draft Zone Text Amendment changes consistent with the Housing Element and General Plan changes. In order to comply with Housing Element program 3.a, the City will increase density in certain areas identified in the Housing Element. More specifically, in commercial corridors and the Medium and High Density Residential zones. The proposed changes to these areas can be found below and on pages 3 and 25 of Exhibit A of Attachment 1.
3 - 3
ZTA: Rezoning & Increased Density
September 18, 2023

Page 4 of 12 ends

Zoning District/Overlay
Zone
Previous Density
(units/acre)
Proposed Density
(units/acre)
RM (Residential Medium
Density)
Minimum: 6.1
Maximum: 14
Minimum: 5.1
Maximum: 30
RH (Residential High
Density)
Minimum: 14.1
Maximum: 25
Minimum: 30.1
Maximum: 45
Focused Area Overlay (to
be changed to Mixed-Use
Overlay)
Up to 24 units/acre if a
Mixed-Use project
Minimum: 52
Maximum: 70
Please note that the Housing Element did not require the City to establish minimum density requirements for each zone, but the City is taking the initiative to do so. In previous iterations of the proposed Zone Text Amendment, the RM zone was proposed to have a minimum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. However, after further consideration, staff recommends decreasing the minimum density requirement to 5.1 since the maximum allowable density in the RS zone is 5. As such, the RM zone minimum requirement will begin where RS maxes out. This will provide potential applicants with more flexibility in designing their multi-family development projects in the RM and RH zones. • Replace the Focused Area Overlay with newly established Mixed-Use Overlay The existing Focused Area Overlay zone was established in the 1998 General Plan update and comprised of the areas below.1 The areas can also be found in the existing Zoning Map (Attachment 3).

1. Huntington-Garfield,

2. Fair Oaks-Huntington,

3. Fair Oaks Corridor (Central District, Upper Fair Oaks, and Lower Fair Oaks),

4. Raymond Hill,

5. Fremont Corridor,

6. Mission Street Specific Plan,

7. Ostrich Farm, and

8. Arroyo Annexation
With the proposed adoption of the new General Plan and DTSP, the areas listed above will no longer be part of the Focused Area Overlay and will be replaced as follows:

1 Found on page II-39 of the 1998 General Plan (Section 2.7 – Specific Focus Areas) 3 - 4
ZTA: Rezoning & Increased Density
September 18, 2023

Page 5 of 12 ends

Existing Focused Areas Previous Land Use
Designation
Proposed Land Use
Designation2
Huntington-Corridor Commercial General Mixed-Use Core
Fair Oaks-Huntington Commercial General Mixed-Use Core
Fair Oaks Corridor Commercial General Fair Oaks Corridor/DTSP Raymond Hill Commercial General, High
Density Residential, Medium
Density Residential,
Commercial Office, & Open
Space
Mixed-Use Core, High
Density Residential, and
Civic
Fremont Corridor Commercial Office Mixed-Use Core
MSSP MSSP Mixed-Use Core/DTSP
Ostrich Farm Business Park, Medium
Density Residential &
Commercial General
Mixed-Use Core
Arroyo Annexation Open Space Open Space
As shown in the table above, most of the former Focused Areas will be replaced by a Mixed-Use Core designation in the General Plan, except for the Fair Oaks Corridor, and Arroyo Annexation areas. The Fair Oaks Corridor will now be included in the DTSP along with the former MSSP area. The new Mixed-Use Overlay will apply only to those parcels designated as Mixed-Use Core in the Land Use Map that are not included in the DTSP areas (See Attachment 4). It is important to note, however, that although the base land use designations are changing, their underlying zoning designations will remain the same (for CG, CO, and BP areas). The new Mixed-Use Overlay areas can be found in the draft Zoning Map (Exhibit B of Attachment 1).
• Mixed-Use Overlay Development Standards
Housing Element program 3.n requires the City to remove subjective development standards to facilitate administrative approval of residential developments. As a result, the proposed Zone Text Amendment will establish development standards for multi-family and mixed-use projects located in the Mixed-Use Overlay zone as well as a procedure for processing such applications. A summary of the changes can be found below:
• The Mixed-Use Overlay development standards include setbacks, lot coverage, height, and frontage standards. It will also include objective design standards such as maximum blank wall length, minimum window glazing, wall plane articulation, etc.

Finally, it includes parking, landscaping, and open space requirements which are typical design standards for multi-family and mixed-use projects. • As part of the requirement for the Housing Element Site Inventory sites, it includes the provision that sites subject to the mixed-use overlay are allowed to be develop 100% residential projects, and any mixed-use projects must include at least 50% of the floor area to be used for residential purposes.

2 See Figure B3.4 Land Use Map in General Plan update document (p. 61) 3 - 5
ZTA: Rezoning & Increased Density
September 18, 2023

Page 6 of 12 ends

• Lastly, it establishes a procedure for city staff to process these residential projects ministerially while also acknowledging that some aspects of the mixed-use project may still require a conditional use permit (CUP) for the nonresidential uses (i.e. alcohol sales, outdoor dining, etc.).
• Other Ancillary Changes
As part of the Zone Text Amendment, other ancillary changes are required to be made in the SPMC to ensure internal consistency is achieved. Such examples include the elimination of all reference to the Mission Street Specific Plan, updating Table 2-1 of the SPMC regarding General Plan Land Use Classifications, and changes to allowable uses to allow residential developments by-right (without CUPs or other discretionary permits).

Additionally, one change being proposed by the General Plan is to a minor reduction in the density of the single-family zones – the RS and RE zones. The RE zone is changing from a range of 1-3.5 units/acre to a maximum of 3 units/acre. The RS zone is changing from a range of 3.51-6 units/acre to 5 units/acre. It is important to note that while the densities of these single-family zones are being decreased, the increases in the RM, RH, and multi-family/mixed-used zones more than make up for the loss of density in the low density districts. Therefore, the city will not experience a net loss of residential development capacity.

Lastly, the proposed Zoning Amendment also includes the adoption of the updated Zoning Map via a Zoning Map Amendment (see Exhibit B of Attachment 1). The full proposed Zone Text Amendment can be found in Exhibit A of Attachment 1 of this staff report.
• Planning Commission’s Recommended Changes to Table 2-6 As part of their review of the proposed Amendments, the Planning Commission, recommended some changes to the Mixed-Use development standards. The proposed changes are intended to represent more flexibility for prospective applicants to design high quality buildings. Please note that the original Zone Text Amendments are in red and the Planning Commission changes are highlighted. Their recommended changes to the Zone Text Amendments are in the following categories in Table 2-6 of Exhibit A of Attachment 1:

1. The maximum floor area by story (p. 25 of Exhibit A),

2. Maximum elevation above and below street/sidewalk level (p. 25 of Exhibit A),

3. Parking and site access (p. 27 of Exhibit A), and

4. Private open space requirements (p. 28 of Exhibit A) Zoning Amendment Findings
SPMC Section 36.620.070(B) stipulates that a Zoning Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment may be approved only if the following findings are met:
3 - 6
-
ZTA: Rezoning & Increased Density
September 18, 2023

Page 7 of 12 ends

1. Findings required for all Zoning Code/Map amendments; a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan;
The proposed Zone Text Amendment is consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element that was adopted on May 30, 2023. The current General Plan that was adopted in 1998 is not internally consistent with the recently adopted Housing Element. The Housing Element is one of the elements required by State law. Therefore, adopting an updated General Plan that implements the policies and programs of the 2021- 2029 Housing Element, and this proposed Zone Text Amendment, would make the documents internally consistent. Further, the proposed Zone Text Amendment is consistent with the following General Plan and Housing Element goals, policies, actions, or programs:
• General Plan Policy P3.2: Direct new growth to the Downtown, Ostrich Farm, and the three neighborhood centers along Huntington Drive; • General Plan Action A3.2b: Update the development code to encourage mixeduse, walkable, and contextual development; • General Plan Policy P3.5: Remove regulatory and procedural barriers to good design;
• General Plan Action A3.5a: Develop and adopt a Form-Based Code for the Downtown area and objective design standards for areas outside the Downtown area;
• Housing Element Goal 3.0: Provide opportunities to increase housing production;
• Housing Element Program 3.a: Rezone and Redesignate Sites to Meet RHNA; • Housing Element Program 3.n: Zoning Changes [to update development standards of residential development projects];
Therefore, the City Council can make this finding in support of the Project. b. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City
The Zoning Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or general welfare of the City because it would achieve internal consistency, including with the adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element. The implementation of the General Plan goals, policies, and actions further support the convenience and general welfare of the City by preserving existing single-family neighborhoods and focusing growth into specific areas where residents will have access to services and public transportation. The General Plan supports mixeduse, walkable neighborhoods, and provides the development capacity to accommodate projected future growth along with the housing programs identified in the Housing Element. Therefore, the City Council can make this finding. 3 - 7
ZTA: Rezoning & Increased Density
September 18, 2023

Page 8 of 12 ends

2. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code.

The proposed Zoning Amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. In addition to the proposed changes to increase density and provide objective standards for residential development projects, the proposed Zoning Amendment also includes other ancillary changes to the Zoning Code to ensure internal consistency with other sections of the Code including updated references to the newly proposed adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP), maintenance of the single-family zones (RE and RS zones), and modifications of allowable land uses in the Mixed-Use Overlay zone. Therefore, the City Council can make this finding.

3. Additional finding for Zoning Map amendments. The site is physically suitable (including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities) for the requested zoning designations and anticipated land uses/projects.

The proposed Zoning Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment are actions taken to implement the General Plan, DTSP, and Housing Element Implementation programs. As a result of these updates, the existing Zoning Map required an update to remove the Focused Area overlay, establish the Mixed-Use overlay, remove the Mission Street Specific Plan, and establish the new DTSP boundaries.

By making these changes, the requested Zoning Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment will be consistent with the updated General Plan, DTSP, and Housing Element Implementation programs. Therefore, the City Council can make this finding.

Environmental Analysis
General Plan/DTSP Update PEIR
The City Council is expected to adopt a resolution recommending certification of the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) from the General Plan/DTSP update, which would cover this implementing action of the proposed Zone Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment. The General Plan/ DTSP Update constitutes a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As such, a PEIR was prepared and was submitted to the California State Clearing House (document SCH No. 2018011050). The PEIR addresses issues raised in January 2018 when the first Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated, as well as issues identified when the Recirculated Notice of Preparation (RNOP) was distributed in April 2021. Public comments were also received in a scoping meeting that was held on February 5, 2018, and again from a virtual scoping meeting that was conducted on May 3, 2021. While two NOPs were distributed for the PEIR, the baseline for environmental analysis was assumed to be April 2021. Based on the scoping meetings, the following environmental areas of controversy were identified: traffic, parking, water supply, and waste water infrastructure.
3 - 8
ZTA: Rezoning & Increased Density
September 18, 2023

Page 9 of 12 ends

1. Aesthetics (Visual Character at a program and cumulative level);

3. Cultural Resources (Historic Resources at a program and cumulative level);

4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG Emissions at a cumulative level);

5. Noise (Construction and Exterior Traffic Noise Standards Violation at a program and cumulative level); and

6. Population and Housing (Population Growth at a program and cumulative level).

Tribal Consultation
The General Plan/DTSP Update are both subject to tribal consultation under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18. On March 13, 2018, the City initiated the offer of consultation by sending letters to applicable tribal representatives. Four tribes were contacted: the Gabrieleño/Tongva Tribe; Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation; and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. The tribal governments were also included in the original Notice of Preparation (NOP) that was dated January 18, 2018. The City received no response to its initial offer of consultation or the NOP in 2018.

On April 21, 2021, the City again initiated consultation under SB18 and AB52, due to the change in the General Plan/DTSP project and its associated Recirculated Notice of Preparation (RNOP). Consultation letters were sent to the Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation; Gabrieleño/Tongva Tribe; Gabrieleño/Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council; and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. One tribe, the Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (Gabrieleño/Tongva Tribe), responded to the consultation request.

Page 10 of 12 ends

Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search that was completed on July 15, 2020. The search was positive, meaning there are sites within the project area that are known to be significant/sacred to local Tribes. Results from the NAHC Sacred Lands File search are kept confidential to protect and preserve known sacred sites.

The public review period for the Draft Program EIR ended on September 6, 2023. Staff and the environmental consultant are preparing the Final Program EIR for consideration by the City Council at its September 27, 2023, meeting.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025 (c), the Planning Commission reviewed the PEIR in draft form, and adopted Resolution No. 23-05 recommending that the City Council consider and adopt the Program EIR.

3.1 through 3.16 of the Environmental Assessment; Mitigation Measures (MMs) that reduce any significant impacts; and the level of significance of each impact after mitigation. Significant irreversible environmental changes and growth-inducing impacts are addressed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations of the Environmental Assessment. Therefore, the proposed Zoning Code implementation of the Housing Element program requirements will not trigger any further CEQA review.

Conclusion
Based on the evidence presented in this staff report and the adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element, the City Council can make the findings to approve the Project. As such, a draft Ordinance has been prepared for the City Council’s consideration (Attachment 1).

Next Steps
September 18, 2023: City Council conducts a Public Hearing, receives a staff presentation and public testimony on the project, and
continues the Public Hearing to September 27, 2023.

September 27, 2023: City Council concludes the Public Hearing, and once the Public Hearing is closed, considers certifying/adopting the 3 - 10
ZTA: Rezoning & Increased Density
September 18, 2023

Page 11 of 12 ends

PEIR, and approving the project with first reading of an Ordinances rescinding the MSSP, Zoning Text Amendments
and Zoning Map Amendments.

October 4, 2023: Assuming the project is approved on September 27, 2023, with the first reading of the Ordinances, conduct a second reading and adopt said Ordinances.

Alternatives
If the City Council chooses not to take action on the proposed Zoning Text Amendments, the item could be considered at the September 27, 2023, City Council meeting. If the Zoning Text Amendments are not adopted on or prior to September 27, 2023, the City would not be in compliance with the Court Order.

Fiscal Impact
The General Fund will be impacted by personnel cost associated with the time required to make the necessary revisions to the SPMC.

Key Performance Indicators and Strategic Plan
This project supports Priority 5 of the Strategic Plan: Plan for affordable housing to comply with state mandates and respond to community needs.

Commission Review and Recommendation
At Special Meetings held on August 21, 2023 and August 23, 2023, the Planning Commission took public testimony, considered and adopted a resolution recommending adoption of an ordinance for the Zone Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment, with some minor changes to the proposed standards (Attachment 2).

Legal Review
The City Attorney has reviewed this item.

As of the writing of the staff report, the City has received no comment letters on the project.
3 - 11
ZTA: Rezoning & Increased Density
September 18, 2023

Page 12 of 12 ends

Attachments

1. Draft Ordinance
a. Exhibit A – Draft Zone Text Amendment– Prepared by MIG with Planning Commission recommended changes
b. Exhibit B – Draft Updated Zoning Map

2. PC Resolution No. 23-08

3. Existing South Pasadena Zoning Map

4. Updated Land Use Map of the proposed General Plan
3 - 12
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Ordinance with Exhibits A and B
3 - 13

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
3 - 14
12777-0001\2863508v3.doc

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
ORDINANCE NO.________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 36 (ZONING) OF

THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA RELATED TO

INCREASED DENSITY INCLUDING REZONING THE EXISTING

FOCUSED AREA OVERLAY ZONE TO MIXED-USE OVERLAY ZONE

AND INCREASING DENSITY IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING

DISTRICTS, AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN AND THE 2021-2029 (6TH

CYCLE) HOUSING ELEMENT
WHEREAS, Sections 65300 et. seq. of the California Government Code requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term, General Plan for the physical development of land within its jurisdiction and Sphere of Influence; and WHEREAS, in strategic planning sessions in 2014 and 2015, the City Council identified the need to update the General Plan and the Mission Street Specific Plan (Project); and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to expand the Mission Street Specific Plan to include the Fair Oaks Avenue Corridor, and the proposed Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) will apply to the Fair Oaks Corridor, generally bounded by SR110 to the north and Lyndon Street to the south, and Mission Street Corridor generally bounded to the north by Hope Street and to the south by El Centro Street, and to the east to Brent Avenue and Indiana Avenue to the west.

WHEREAS, Sections 65580 et. seq. of the California Government Code requires each city and county to periodically prepare and update its Housing Element in its General Plan. The City of South Pasadena received the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers from the Southern California Association of Government in 2019 and started updating the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2022, the City of South Pasadena was sued by Californians for Homeownership for non-compliance with State Housing Law for failing to have adopted a compliant Housing Element by October 15, 2021 (Californians for Homeownership v. City of South Pasadena, LASC Case Nos. 22STCP01388 & 22STCP01161); and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2022, the City entered into a Settlement Agreement with Californians for Homeownership to resolve the lawsuit, and that the Settlement Agreement committed the City to a number of actions, including but not limited to: completing the necessary rezoning to support the Housing Element within 120 days of the adoption of the Housing Element; and addition of a program to seek, through voter approval, the removal of the City’s existing 45-foot height limit for at least any parcel identified in the Housing Element for which the base density is anticipated to exceed 50 dwelling units per acre; and 3 - 15
Ordinance No. ___
2 12777-0001\2863508v3.doc
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2022, the Settlement Agreement was adopted as the Court Order and committed the City to adopting a housing element certified by or eligible for certification by HCD no later than May 31, 2023; and WHEREAS, on May 30, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the Draft Housing Element. After hearing public testimony on the Project, considering the staff report, staff presentation, and Council discussion, in keeping with the stipulations of the Court Order, the City Council adopted the Housing Element, thereby commencing the 120-day period in which the City must adopt changes to the Zoning Ordinance to support the Housing Element and its programs; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2023, and June 17, 2023, public workshops on the General Plan and DTSP were held wherein the community received a presentation and provided input on the Project; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2023, the Draft General Plan and DTSP were released for public comments; and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued to the Public Hearing to August 21, 2023, wherein the Planning Commission received a staff presentation, considered the staff report, public testimony, Planning Commission discussion, and all other materials and evidence, whether written or oral; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered this Ordinance on August 21, 2023, at a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, at which time the City Staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or against this matter and continued the matter to a special meeting on August 23, 2023; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission’s consideration of the matter on August 23, 2023, and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 23-08, recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance making various amendments to City Code Chapter 36 (Zoning), including specific modifications as recommended by the Planning Commission, and amending the Zoning Map substantially as set forth in Exhibits A and B of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered this Ordinance on September 18 and September 27, 2023, at a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, at which time the City Staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or against this matter.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
3 - 16
Ordinance No. ___
3 12777-0001\2863508v3.doc
SECTION 1. The facts set forth in the recitals of this Ordinance are true and correct.

SECTION 2: Based upon substantial evidence presented, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, and the environmental documentation, the City Council finds:

A. All necessary Public Hearings and opportunities for public testimony and comment have been conducted in compliance with applicable law; B. That the proposed Zoning Amendments comply with the Housing Goals in the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element and updated General Plan.

SECTION 3: ZONING AMENDMENT FINDINGS. South Pasadena Municipal Code (SPMC) Section 36.620.070(B) stipulates that Zoning Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments may be approved if the following findings are made:

1. Findings required for all Zoning Code/Map amendments. a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan.

The proposed Zone Text Amendments are consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element that was adopted on May 30, 2023. The current General Plan that was adopted in 1998 is not internally consistent with the recently adopted Housing Element.

The Housing Element is one of the elements required by State law. Therefore, adopting an updated General Plan that implements the policies and programs of the 2021-2029 Housing Element, and the proposed Zone Text Amendments, would make the documents internally consistent. Further, the proposed Zone Text Amendments are consistent with the following General Plan and Housing Element goals, policies, actions, or programs:
• General Plan Policy P3.2: Direct new growth to the Downtown, Ostrich Farm, and the three neighborhood centers along Huntington Drive; • General Plan Action A3.2b: Update the Development Code to encourage mixed-use, walkable, and contextual development;
• General Plan Policy P3.5: Remove regulatory and procedural barriers to good design;
• General Plan Action A3.5a: Develop and adopt a Form-Based Code for the Downtown area and objective design standards for areas outside the Downtown area;
• Housing Element Goal 3.0: Provide opportunities to increase housing production;
• Housing Element Program 3.a: Rezone and redesignate sites to meet RHNA; 3 - 17
Ordinance No. ___
4 12777-0001\2863508v3.doc
• Housing Element Program 3.n: Zoning Changes [to update development standards of residential development projects];
Therefore, the City Council hereby makes this finding in support of the Amendments.
b. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City.

The Zoning Text and Map Amendments would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or general welfare of the City because it would achieve consistency, including with the adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element. The implementation of the General Plan goals, policies, and actions further support the convenience and general welfare of the City by preserving existing single-family neighborhoods and focusing growth into specific areas where residents will have access to services and public transportation. The General Plan supports mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods, and provides the development capacity to accommodate projected future growth along with the housing programs identified in the Housing Element. Therefore, the City Council hereby makes this finding.

2. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code.

The proposed Zoning Amendments are internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. In addition to the proposed changes to increase density and provide objective standards for residential development projects, the proposed Zoning Amendments also include other ancillary changes to the Zoning Code to ensure internal consistency with other sections of the Code including updated references to the newly proposed adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP), maintenance of the single-family zones (RE and RS zones), and modifications of allowable land uses in the Mixed-Use Overlay zone. Therefore, the City Council hereby makes this finding.

The proposed Zoning Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments are actions taken to implement the General Plan, DTSP, and Housing Element Implementation programs.

As a result of these updates, the existing Zoning Map requires an update to remove the Focused Area overlay, establish the Mixed-Use overlay, remove the Mission Street Specific Plan, and establish the new DTSP boundaries. By making these changes, the Zoning Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments will be consistent with the updated General Plan, DTSP, and Housing Element Implementation programs. Therefore, the City Council hereby makes this finding.
3 - 18
Ordinance No. ___
5 12777-0001\2863508v3.doc
SECTION 4. Environmental Findings. This Ordinance reflects an action to implement the City’s adopted Housing Element, which was included within the scope of the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the General Plan Update, Downtown Specific Plan and Housing Element Implementation Project. The City Council, exercising its independent judgment, previously adopted Resolution No. [insert number] certifying the Final PEIR, making required findings, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project of which this Ordinance is a part. In approving this Ordinance, the City Council hereby relies on the environmental determinations and findings set forth in Resolution No. [insert number], which is hereby incorporated herein by reference. The amendments made by this Ordinance were also contemplated by the Environmental Assessment prepared and adopted in conjunction with the City Council’s adoption of the Housing Element. Each of these provide separate and independent bases demonstrating compliance with the CEQA.

SECTION 5. The City Council hereby amends various sections of Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the City Code of the City of South Pasadena to incorporate the text changes set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, with all sections of Chapter 36 that have no amendments identified in Exhibit A remaining in effect without amendment.

SECTION 6. The City Council hereby adopts the Amended Zoning Map, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 7. Severability. If any section subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections and/or provisions of this Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation.

SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage, and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, the City Clerk of the City of South Pasadena shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and to its approval by the Mayor and City Council and shall cause the same to be published in a newspaper in the manner required by law.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON this 18th day of September, 2023. 3 - 19
Ordinance No. ___
6 12777-0001\2863508v3.doc

Jon Primuth, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk Roxanne Diaz, City Attorney

3 - 20
Ordinance No. ___
7 12777-0001\2863508v3.doc

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
CITY CLERK’S DIVISION

CERTIFICATION OF ORDINANCE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA)
I, Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk of the City of South Pasadena, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. _____, was duly and regularly approved and adopted at a Regular meeting of the City Council on this XXth day of September, 2023, by the following votes as the same appears on file and of record in the Office of the City Clerk.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

____________________________________
Mark Perez
Deputy City Clerk
3 - 21
■
City of South Pasadena
Chapter 36 Zoning
Focused Amendments to Various Sections
3 - 22

36.200.020 Zoning Map and Zoning Districts.

The official City of South Pasadena Zoning Map has been adopted by the Council and is on file in the Department.

A. Zoning districts established. The City of South Pasadena shall be divided into zoning districts which implement the General Plan. The zoning districts shown in Table 2-1 are hereby established, and shall be shown on the Zoning Map.

B. Interpretation of zoning district boundaries. If there is uncertainty about the location of any zoning district boundary shown on the Zoning Map, the precise location of the boundary shall be determined by the Director.

1. Where district boundaries approximately follow lot, alley, or street lines, the lot lines and/or street and alley centerlines shall be construed as the district boundaries as appropriate;

2. Where a public street or alley is officially vacated or abandoned, the property that was formerly in the street or alley will be included within the zoning district of the adjoining property on either side of the centerline of the vacated or abandoned street or alley.

The Director may refer any question of interpretation of the Zoning Map to the Commission for a determination, at a public hearing.

C. Annexations. Areas annexed to the City shall be zoned according to the pre-annexation zoning classification until City zoning is applied to the site in compliance with Division 36.620 (Amendments).

TABLE 2-1. ZONING DISTRICTS
Zoning District Symbol Zoning District Name
General Plan Land Use
Classification Implemented by
Zoning District
Residential Districts
RE Residential Estate Estate and Very Low Density
ResidentialNeighborhood
RS Residential Single Family Low Density
ResidentialNeighborhood
RM Residential Medium Density Medium Density
ResidentialNeighborhood
RH Residential High Density High Density
ResidentialNeighborhood
3 - 23
TABLE 2-1. ZONING DISTRICTS
Zoning District Symbol Zoning District Name
General Plan Land Use
Classification Implemented by
Zoning District
Commercial Districts
CG Commercial General General CommercialMixed Use
Core; Fair Oaks Corridor
CO Commercial Office Professional OfficeMixed Use
Core
BP Business Park Business Park, Research and
Development, and Light
ManufacturingMixed Use Core
Special Purpose Districts
CF Community Facilities Community FacilitiesCivic
OS Open Space Parks & Open Space/ParksSpaces;
Preserves
MSSPDTSP Mission Street Downtown
Specific Plan
Mission Street Specific PlanMixed
Use Core; Fair Oaks Corridor
HFSP Holy Family Specific Plan Holy Family Specific PlanCivic Overlay Districts
AM Altos de Monterey Altos de Monterey
ResidentialVery Low Density
Neighborhood
FA MU Focus Area Mixed Use Overlay Focus Areas (General Plan Section 2-7) Mixed Use Core
3 - 24
Division 36.220. Residential Zoning Districts

36.220.010 Purpose of Division.

This Division lists the uses of land that may be allowed within the residential zoning districts established by Section 36.200.020 (Zoning Map and Zoning Districts), determines the type of zoning approval/approval required for each use, and provides basic standards for site layout and building size.

36.220.020 Purposes of Residential Zoning Districts.

Different residential zoning districts are intended to provide for a variety of housing opportunities through new construction, and the maintenance of existing homes and neighborhoods. The purposes of the individual residential zoning districts and the manner in which they are applied are as follows.

A. RE (Residential Estate) district. The RE zoning district applies to areas appropriate for detached, single-family residential homes on large estate parcels. The allowable residential density ranges from one to 3.5is a maximum of three dwelling units per acre. The RE zoning district is consistent with the Estate/Very -Low Density ResidentialNeighborhood land use designation of the General Plan.

B. RS (Residential Single-Family) district. The RS zoning district is intended for areas appropriate for the development of detached, single-family homes. The allowable residential density ranges from 3.51 to sixis a maximum of five dwelling units per acre. The RS zoning district is consistent with the Low Density ResidentialNeighborhood land use designation of the General Plan.

C. RM (Residential Medium Density) district. The RM zoning district applies to areas appropriate for a variety of housing types. Typical residential land uses include single-family bungalow courts, courtyard housing, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, ormultiplexes, and other attached or detached single-family dwellings. on smaller lots. The allowable residential density ranges from 65.1 to 1430 dwelling units per acre. The RM zoning district is consistent with the Medium Density ResidentialNeighborhood land use designation of the General Plan.

D. RH (Residential High Density) district. The RH zoning district is intended for areas appropriate for high density single-family attached or multi-family dwelling units, including courtyard housing, townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. The allowable residential density ranges from 1430.1 to 2445 dwelling units per acre. The RH zoning district is consistent with the High Density ResidentialNeighborhood land use designation of the General Plan.

36.220.030 Residential Zoning District Land Uses and Permit Requirements.

A. General requirements. Table 2-2 identifies the uses of land allowed by this Zoning Code in each residential zoning district, and the zonings approval required to establish each use, in compliance with Section 36.210.030 (Allowable Land Uses and Permit Requirements).

Note: where the last column in the tables (“Specific Use Regulations”) includes a section number, the regulations in the referenced section apply to the use; however, provisions in other sections of this Zoning Code may also apply.

B. Altos de Monterey (AM) overlay district. Allowable land uses and permit requirements for parcels within the AM overlay district are established by Section 36.250.030. 3 - 25
TABLE 2-2.

ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT

REQUIREMENTS

FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING

DISTRICTS
P Permitted Use
CUP Conditional Use Permit required
AUP Administrative Use Permit required
— Use not allowed
PERMIT REQUIRED BY DISTRICT Specific Use
Regulations LAND USE (1) RE RS RM RH

RECREATION, EDUCATION, PUBLIC ASSEMBLY & COMMUNITY FACILITY USES Clubs, lodges and fraternal
organizations
— — — CUP
Community center — — — CUP
Private sport courts AUP AUP AUP AUP
Community gardens CUP CUP CUP CUP 36.350.230

RESIDENTIAL USES
Accessory residential uses
and structures
P(3
(2)
P(3 (2) P(3 (2) P(3 (2) 36.350.170
Home occupation P P P P 36.410.030
Multi-family dwellings — — P P 36.350.180,
190
Organizational house
(sorority, convent, etc.)
— — CUP CUP
Residential care facility, 6
persons or less

P P P P
Residential care facility, 7
persons or more
— — CUP CUP 36.350.050
Residential care facility for
the elderly (RCFE)
— — CUP CUP 36.350.050
3 - 26
TABLE 2-2.

ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT

REQUIREMENTS

FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING

DISTRICTS
P Permitted Use
CUP Conditional Use Permit required
AUP Administrative Use Permit required
— Use not allowed
PERMIT REQUIRED BY DISTRICT Specific Use
Regulations LAND USE (1) RE RS RM RH
SecondAccessory dwelling
unitunits
P P P —P 36.350.200
RESIDENTIAL USES (Continued)
Existing single-family dwelling P P P P
New single-family dwelling P P — —
Transitional and supportive
housing
P P P (multi-family
types located in
the RM district
are subject to
specific use
regulations

36.350.180,190)
P (multi-family
types located in
the RH district
are subject to
specific use
regulations

36.350.180,190)

SERVICE USES
Bed & breakfast inn (B&B) CUP CUP CUP CUP 36.350.070
Child day care center — — CUP CUP 36.350.080
Child day care—Small family
day care home
P P P P 36.350.080
Child day care—Large family
day care home
P P P P 36.350.080
Medical services—Extended
care
— — — CUP(2)
3 - 27
TABLE 2-2.

ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT

REQUIREMENTS

FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING

DISTRICTS
P Permitted Use
CUP Conditional Use Permit required
AUP Administrative Use Permit required
— Use not allowed
PERMIT REQUIRED BY DISTRICT Specific Use
Regulations LAND USE (1) RE RS RM RH
Mortuaries and funeral
homes
— — — CUP(2)
Notes:
(1) See Article 7 for land use definitions.
(2) Allowable locations restricted to El Centro Street between Fremont and Diamond; Fair Oaks Avenue; Fremont Avenue north of Monterey Road; and Huntington Drive. (3
(2) Permit required determined by Section 36.350.170.

36.220.040 Residential Zoning District General Development Standards.

A. General requirements. Subdivisions, new land uses and structures, and alterations to existing land uses and structures, shall be designed, constructed, and/or established in compliance with the requirements in Table 2-3, in addition to the applicable development standards (e.g., landscaping, parking and loading, etc.) in Article 3 (Site Planning and General Development Standards).

B. Altos de Monterey (AM) overlay district. Development standards for parcels within the AM overlay district are established by Section 36.250.030.

C. Design Guidelines. and Standards. Land uses and structures proposed within the residential zoning districts shall comply with the City’s Design Guidelines to the extent required by the Design Review Board and/or specific provisions of the Design Guidelines., objective design standards, and to the extent permitted by State law. Qualifying residential projects shall comply with the ministerial approval process established by Section 36.410.040D.6.
3 - 28
tt-
TABLE 2-3. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Requirement by Zoning District (1)
Development
Feature

RE RS RM RH
Minimum lot size Minimum area and width for parcels proposed in new subdivisions.

Area 12,500 sf 10,000 sf 10,000 sf 10,000 sf
Width 75 ft; 85 ft for a
corner lot
50 ft; 60 ft for a
corner lot
60 ft; 80 ft for a corner lot 70 ft
Residential
density
Maximum number of dwelling units allowed in a project. The actual number of units allowed will be determined by the City through subdivision or land use permit approval, as applicable.

Allowable
density
1—Maximum of

3.5 du/acre

3.51—
6Maximum of 5
du/acre

65.1—14 to 30 du/acre 1430.1—24 to
45 du/acre
Minimum density
allowed
Each legal parcel in a residential zoning district will be allowed one single-family dwelling regardless of lot area; parcels in the RE, RS, and RM districts may also be allowed a second dwelling unit in compliance with Section 36.350.200 (Residential Uses—Second Dwelling Units).

Minimum lot
area/ multifamily unit
N.A. 3,200—7,300 sf 1,900—3,200 sf
Setbacks Minimum and, where noted, maximum setbacks required. See Section 36.300.030 for setback measurement, allowed projections into setbacks, and specific exceptions to setbacks.

Front 25% of lot depth, with a minimum
of 25 ft, and a maximum
requirement of 35 ft
20 ft 20 ft; 85 ft from
street centerline
on Huntington
Drive15 ft
Front exception If 60 percent or more of the lots
on the same block face have
structures with front setbacks
different from the above, the
An additional minimum 5 ft setback from the
property line shall be provided for every story
above the second story.
3 - 29
- - - -
TABLE 2-3. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Requirement by Zoning District (1)
Development
Feature

RE RS RM RH
required front setback shall be the
average of the existing front
setbacks, provided that no more
than 45 feet shall be required in
the RE district, and 35 ft shall be
required elsewhere.

Sides, each 10% of lot width 10% of lot
width, 4 ft
minimum
An additional minimum 4-
foot setback from the
property line shall be provided
for every additional story
above the second story.
10 ft8 ft
minimum; 10 ft
minimum
setback from the
property line
shall be
provided for
each story
above the
second story.

Side, street side 20% of lot width, to a maximum
requirement of 15 ft
15 ft minimum
Rear 25 ft 20 ft15 ft minimum; or 5 ft
minimum abutting an alley
15 ft, or 5 ft if
abuts an alley.20
ft minimum; 22
ft minimum
setback shall be
provided for
each additional
story above the
second story.

Garage An attached garage shall be set
back a minimum of 10 ft from the
front of the main structure
N/A
Accessory
structures
As required for primary
structures, except that:

See Section 36.350.170 (Residential Uses—
Accessory Residential Structures)
3 - 30
TABLE 2-3. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Requirement by Zoning District (1)
Development
Feature

RE RS RM RH
• A structure of 120 sf or less
may be placed within a required
side or rear setback, but not a
front setback or in front of the
frontmost dwelling unit on the lot;
• A detached garage or carport
or other accessory residential
structure shall be located at least
5 ft from a side and/or rear
property line, except if the
required side yard setback for the
dwelling/s is less than 5 ft, in
which case the lesser side yard
setback may be used for a
detached garage or carport only.

Such structures cannot be located
in the front setback or in front of
the frontmost dwelling unit on the
lot;
• Accessory structures shall be
located at or beyond the required
street-facing side yard setback for
the dwelling/s, except if the
Director determines that a lesser
setback can be approved using the
Administrative Use Permit process
detailed in Section

36.350.170(C)(3)(e);
• Private residential recreational
facilities shall be located at least 5
ft from a side and/or rear
property line and cannot be
located in the front setback, or in
front of the frontmost dwelling
3 - 31
TABLE 2-3. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Requirement by Zoning District (1)
Development
Feature

RE RS RM RH
unit on the lot or in the streetfacing side setback of a corner lot.

See also Section 36.350.170
(Residential Uses—Accessory
Residential Structures).

Building
separation
10 ft between structures on the
same site.

Minimum distances shall comply with Fire Code
requirements but in no case shall be less than 10
ft.

Lot coverage Maximum percentage of total lot area that may be covered by structures. 40% N/A N/A
Floor area ratio Maximum allowable ratio of building floor area to lot area. See Article 7 (Definitions) for a definition and illustration.

Floor area ratio
requirement

0.35 Single-family dwellings—0.50
Multifamily projects—1.25
N/A
Single-family
dwellings—0.40
Multifamily
projects—1.25
N/A
Exception Each dwelling unit may have an attached or detached garage or carport of up to 500 sf in addition to the above-listed FAR. Any square footage in excess of 500 sf is included in the FAR calculation.

Height limit Maximum allowable height of structures in other than hillside areas (see Division

36.340 (Hillside Protection) for height limits in hillside areas). See Section

36.300.040 (Height Limits and Exceptions) for height measurement requirements.

See also Section 36.350.170 (Residential Uses—Accessory Residential Structures).

Maximum height 35 ft 45 ft
3 - 32
TABLE 2-3. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Requirement by Zoning District (1)
Development
Feature

RE RS RM RH
Multiple story
exception
No portion of a structure shall
encroach through a 45-degree
angle projected perpendicularly
from the front property line
toward the rear property line. See
Figure 2-1 in this Division. Building
height in addition to the above
limits may be authorized by
design review (Section

36.410.040) to accommodate
dormer windows and/or
nonhabitableuninhabitable roof
structures where appropriate to
the architectural style of the
dwelling.

N/A
Open Space Not applicableN/A As required by Section 36.350.190 (Multi-Family Project Standards)
Landscaping As required by Division 36.330 (Landscaping Standards) Parking As required by Division 36.310 (Parking and Loading)), unless such development qualifies for an exception to providing parking under provisions of State law Signs As required by Division 36.320 (Signs)
Notes:
(1) Altos de Monterey exceptions. The standards and requirements for development within the Altos de Monterey (AM) overlay zoning district are different from those in this table; see Section 36.250.030.

Figure 2-1. Height Limit Adjacent to Street
3 - 33

36.220.050 Development of Small Nonconforming Residential Parcels.

The following standards apply to new and remodeled single-family dwellings on legal nonconforming parcels with an area of less than 10,000 square feet, except that all standards, except subsection F (Lot Coverage), do not apply to hillside parcels (as defined by Section 36.340.2020(A) (Hillside Protection)).

These standards are intended to minimize the impacts of single-family dwelling alteration, construction, expansion, and replacement by maintaining the existing residential neighborhood character that might otherwise result in overbuilding on a small single-family parcel.

A. Design compatibility. Proposed construction shall have exterior colors, forms, and materials that are consistent throughout and visually compatible with adjacent structures and the surrounding neighborhood. The size, mass, and scale of new dwellings shall also be visually compatible with adjacent structures and the surrounding neighborhood. New dwellings shall also comply with the City’s Residential Design Guidelines.

B. Setbacks.

1. The front and rear setback shall be 20 feet, or 15 feet for houses with a front porch.

2. A second story shall be set back an additional five feet from the front of the house and three feet on both sides (which may be accommodated within a sloping roof), unless the architectural style requires a zero front or side second story setback, as determined by the Review Authority. In the latter case, the ground floor front setback shall be 25 feet.

C. Driveway width. Driveways shall be limited to a maximum paved width of 10 feet with two feet clear of obstructions on either side, or 40 percent of the parcel frontage, whichever is less. Driveway width at property lines shall be limited to 10 feet.

D. Front yard paving. No more than 45 percent of the total area of the front setback shall be paved for walkways, driveways, and/or other hardcover pavement.

E. Reserved.

F. Lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be 50 percent. 3 - 34
Front Property Line
I
7 Maxlmum
I Heightof
Building
Mass
I
I l i" Front Setback "'l
G. Parking. For dwellings with detached garages located behind the primary unit, the minimum parking requirement shall be two covered spaces. Attached garages shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the front of the building, and shall include two enclosed spaces. 3 - 35
Division 36.230. Commercial Zoning Districts
Sections:

36.230.010 Purpose of Division.

36.230.020 Purposes of Commercial Zoning Districts.

36.230.030 Commercial District Land Uses and Permit Requirements.

36.230.040 Commercial District General Development Standards.

36.230.050 Mixed Use Overlay Development Standards.

36.230.010 Purpose of Division.

This Division lists the uses of land that may be allowed within the commercial zoning districts established by Section 36.200.020 (Zoning Map and Zoning Districts). It also determines the type of zoning approval/approval required for each use, and provides basic standards for site development.

36.230.020 Purposes of Commercial Zoning Districts.

The Commercial zoning districts are intended to provide a range of commercial opportunities within South Pasadena. The purposes of the individual Commercial zoning districts and the manner in which they are applied are as follows.

A. CG (Commercial General) District. The CG zoning district is applied to areas appropriate for a wide range of commercial retail and service land uses. The CG zoning district is consistent with the General CommercialMixed Use Core land use designation of the General Plan.

B. CO (Commercial Office) District. The CO zoning district is applied to areas appropriate for professional offices. Other uses including business support services, restaurants, and specialty retail land uses may be allowed. The CO zoning district is consistent with the Professional OfficeMixed Use Core land use designation in the General Plan.

C. BP (Business Park) District. The BP zoning district is applied to areas appropriate for light manufacturing and business park uses including research and development, corporate headquarter offices, and support service and retail land uses. Land uses in the BP District are intended to be designed as campus-business park environments. The BP zoning district is consistent with the Business Park, Research & Development, Light ManufacturingMixed Use Core land use designation of the General Plan.

D. MU (Mixed Use) Overlay District. The MU Overlay district may be applied to all CO, CG, and BP zoning districts as an overlay to allow for a wide range of development that contains a mix of functions, including commercial, entertainment, office, and housing. The MU Overlay District is consistent with the Mixed Use Core land use designation in the General Plan. The intent of this overlay district includes implementation of General Plan policy direction and applicable State laws to allow for 100 percent residential development in the CO and CG zoning districts. 3 - 36

36.230.030 Commercial District Land Uses and Permit Requirements.

A. General requirements. Table 2-4 identifies the uses of land allowed by this Zoning Code in the commercial zoning districts, and the zoning approval required to establish each use, in compliance with Section 36.210.030 (Allowable Land Uses and Permit Requirements).

B. Focus area requirements. A site within a focus area (FA) overlay district may be subject to limitations required by Section 36.250.040 (Focus Area (FA) Overlay District).

C. Design guidelines and standards. Land uses and structures proposed within the commercial zoning districts shall comply with any adopted design guidelines to the extent required by the Review Authority and/or specific provisions of any design guidelines and any applicable objective design standards for qualifying residential and mixed-use projects. Qualifying residential projects shall comply with the ministerial approval process established by Section 36.410.040D.6.

TABLE 2-4.