South Pasadena City Council
September 27, 2023

- Once Finance receives the forms, the Finance Team will work with each department to discuss each line item in their budget to determine if it is reasonable and appropriate. After finalizing the amounts for each line item, the Finance Team will start compiling all the data to roll up into a summarized form. - The summary sheets and details will be presented to City Manager. If changes are necessary, the Department will reach out to Finance to make the changes.

Finance Department keep track of changes on an Excel worksheet. While the budget is being finalized, each Department will work on compiling their department narratives and performance indicators. As the narratives and the budgets are being finalized, Finance Department is working on the Personnel Budget along with compiling the Budget book.
- In April, the Department will review their budget with City Manager, and the draft budget document is refined. In May the Proposed Budget Book is presented to the Finance Commission and then the City Council for review and comments.

Any comments presented by City Council will be integrated into the Proposed Budget Book.
- The Proposed Budget Book will go through several iterations before being adopted by City Council in June.

Analysis
The City’s investment in budget software is imperative to the progress and improvements of the City’s Finance Department, its workload and outputs, as well as continued improvement of the City’s Budget and budget process. Support of investment in budget software and tools has been voiced by the City Manager, City Council, Finance Commission, and listed as a priority in-progress early this year in the Department’s Operational Assessment.

The City of South Pasadena Finance Department has solicited quotes from budget software vendors, through a request for demo and e-mail process. We received three demonstrations and were provided with three proposals. The three vendors that Finance Department contacted were Questica, ClearGov, and OpenGov, as shown in the table below. The requested Budget software services generally includes Financial, Operating, Personnel, and Capital modules, training, production of budget book, and transparency.

Vendor Base Bid (60 months of services)
Questica $ 112,874.81
ClearGov $ 183,39248
OpenGov $ 247,405.00
14 - 2
Award to Questica for Budget Software
September 27, 2023

In line with the City's financial objectives, the staff's goal is to procure the software from Questica, the vendor offering the most economical estimate. Questica not only presents the most affordable quote, but they also integrate seamlessly with our financial software, Springbrook, facilitating the daily exchange of data. Industry leading multi-user Questica Budget offers solutions and professional services for implementation, integration, configuration, training, and post-implementation customer support related to budget drafting, analysis tools and development.

Implementing a comprehensive budgeting software will reduce the current timeintensive and inefficient practices currently employed as part of the budget process and will also mitigate potential errors in managing multiple Excel spreadsheets to calculate the various component that contribute to the drafting and ultimately the final, City budget document.

Fiscal Impact
Questica has quoted the following costs for this budget software over the next five years: $24,645 for Fiscal Years 2023-2024, $20,475 for 2024-2025, $21,499 for 2025- 2026, $22,574 for 2026-2027, and $23,703 for 2027-2028, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $112,875. Funding for the Budget software will be appropriated from the General Fund and the Water Fund, Acct #101-3010-3011-8170-000 ($12,312) and Acct #500-3010-3012-8170-000 ($12,313). As this contract is for a Five-Year term, City staff will appropriately budget for the remainder of the term in future budgets.

Key Performance Indicators and Strategic Plan
This item is in line with the Finance Department’s Key Performance Indicator of Budgetary Management. To efficiently produce and adopt a Budget in a timely manner, having a Budget Software will help in the labor-intensive tracking and going back and forth with departments. This will enable a more collaborative approach in the budget process.

Commission Review and Recommendation
This item was not reviewed by the Finance Commission.

Attachments

1. Questica’s Proposal
14 - 3

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
14 - 4
ATTACHMENT 1
Questica’s Proposal
14 - 5

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
14 - 6
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved.

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA CA | AUGUST 2023
Prepared By: Carlos Perez
Prepared On: August 24, 2023
Brownsville, TX | December 2021
14 - 7
Questica
A Euna Solutions Brand
Questica Budget
Proposal
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 2 August 22nd 2023
Hsiulee Tran
Deputy Finance Director /Controller
City of South Pasadena CA
Dear Hsiulee,
Questica Ltd. is thrilled with the possibility of partnering with the City of South Pasadena CA in its effort to transform the current budget development and management process. We welcome an opportunity to leverage over 25 years of success with similar sized customers across North America to help the City of South Pasadena CA:
• Transition from labor-intensive, unsupported on premise software to an efficient, comprehensive, cloud based budgeting and forecasting software system
• Enable staff to more actively participate in a collaborative budgeting process remotely or in the office • Better serve the planning team, finance staff, executive leadership and the community by facilitating analytics with upto-date information presented in actionable reports, dashboards, and queries • Budget more effectively for personnel, manage multiple scenarios and decision packages in a single system with a consistent, user-friendly user-interface
Questica proposes a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) subscription of our industry leading multi-user Questica Budget solution and our professional services for implementation, integration, configuration, training, and post-implementation customer support. Questica is unique in providing a fully integrated solution offered with a consistent and well-organized user-interface that is purpose-built for budgeting in the public sector.

Simply put, Questica is THE most trusted budgeting solution provider by governments in North America. Some key considerations that set Questica apart include the following:
• Full circle, end-to-end budgeting solutions: Questica provides a single solution with modules and functionality to address your budgeting needs from start to finish. Per your requirements, we’ve provided a proposal that addresses your Operating and Personnel budgeting needs.
• More configurable, less customizations: Questica’s 25 plus years in the government budgeting space means we’ve seen best practices across multiple budgeting approaches at hundreds of State and Local agencies and organizations.

Rather than customize the platform for each approach, Questica builds in incremental best practices as configurable options, offering Questica customers the ability to replicate those processes without re-inventing the wheel. Ultimately, this leads to quicker, less costly, and more stable implementations for long-term ROI. • You are in control: Questica Budget is designed for client-side administration, with security, reports, and workflow configurable at the admin user level. We also leverage a single tenant architecture, which means that each customer has a unique and segregated instance of our software, enabling the City of South Pasadena CA to choose when to apply software updates, based on your convenience and schedule. • Singular focus and purpose built for government: Questica Budget is not a generic “one-size-fits-all” solution, nor is it a “Swiss army knife” that proposes to do many things half-well. Instead, Questica Budget is a point solution that excels at enabling a collaborative budgeting process for state and local governments, and public agencies. Since our inception, we have been 100% focused on crafting best-in-class budgeting solutions for the public sector. • Right sized for you. Questica is big enough to support your organization, yet nimble enough to remain agile. We currently have 130+ employees, which means we have the resources needed to support large-scale, complex implementations while remaining flexible to accommodate your unique requirements. We manage all aspects of our customer implementation, from kick-off to post-implementation support, exclusively with Questica employees.

We have an unmatched track record of success in implementing our solutions for government organizations and we stand firm in our ‘getting it done right the first time’ mission. We look forward to continued conversations with your finance team and to demonstrating how Questica will provide unquestionable value and return on investment to the City of South Pasadena CA.

Sincerely,
Carlos Perez
Senior Account Executive
[email protected]
877.707.7755 ext.4421
14 - 8
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 3 WHO WE ARE 4
WHO USES QUESTICA BUDGET? 5
ABOUT QUESTICA 6
KEY BENEFITS OF QUESTICA 7
QUESTICA BUDGET 8
OVERVIEW 8
OPERATING MODULE 8
PERSONNEL PLANNING & BUDGETING MODULE 9
CAPITAL MODULE 9
PERFORMANCE MODULE 10
QUESTICA INTEGRATION SYSTEM (QIS) 10
STATISTICAL LEDGER 10
SPECIAL FEATURES 10
ALLOCATIONS 11
ADVANCED SEARCHES 12
REPORTING AND DASHBOARDS 12
CHANGE REQUESTS/DECISION PACKAGES 12
ADVANCED CALCULATION ENGINE (ACE) 12
QUESTICA’S DIGITAL BUDGET BOOK SOLUTION 13
OPENBOOK TRANSPARENCY AND DATA VISUALIZATIONS 14
GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT OPTIONS 15
QUESTICA BUDGET PRICE QUOTE 16
PRICING NOTES 18
SUMMARY 19
14 - 9
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 4

WHO WE ARE
2021 – 2019 As part of Euna Solutions (previously GTY Technology), recognized by Government Technology in their annual GovTech 100 Index which showcases the 100 leading companies serving state and local governments in unique, innovative, and effective ways.
2019 CV Magazine’s Canadian Business Awards, “Best Cloud-Based Budgeting Software Solutions Provider.”
2018 “10 most trusted public sector solution providers” by Insights Success magazine.

For the past 25 years, Questica has partnered
with public sector organizations to enable
data-driven budgeting and decisionmaking, while increasing data accuracy and productivity and improving stakeholder
trust. These organizations are modernizing
their business processes using Questica’s
budgeting, performance, transparency, and
engagement software solutions.

Questica is consistently recognized as one of the leading and most trusted budgeting software solutions:

The Questica team is comprised of roughly 130+ technology experts, budget professionals and business specialists who have decades of experience working with local government. We in fact represent the largest group of budget software experts in North America dedicated to serving the public sector.

Euna Solutions is a leading provider of purpose-built, cloud-based solutions that power critical administrative functions and financial operations for the public sector. Formerly GTY Technology, Euna Solutions offers easy-to-use solutions for procurement, payments, grant management, budgeting, permitting and K-12 administration that are proven to increase operational efficiency, transparency, collaboration, and compliance.

Euna Solutions is a trusted partner to more than 2,000 government and public sector organizations across North America, empowering digital transformation and streamlining business processes through a relationship-centered, service-focused approach. Euna propels public sector progress. To learn more, visit www.eunasolutions.com.

Our team understands the unique challenges that government organizations face when preparing, managing, and sharing the details of a budget, and we bring our collective years of experience to the City of South Pasadena’s project.
14 - 10
Questica ~ A Euna Solutions Brand
EUNA
solutions
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 5 WHO USES QUESTICA BUDGET?
◆ Oceanside, California ◆ Palo Alto, California
◆ Riverside, California ◆ Temecula, California
◆ Santa Clara, California ◆ Escondido, California
◆ Malibu, California ◆ Corona, California
◆ Santa Ana, California ◆ Coachella Valley Association Government ◆ Sonora, California ◆ Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
◆ Thousand Oaks, California ◆ California State University, Long Beach ◆ Whittier, California ◆ Sacramento Area Council Government ◆ Merced County, California ◆ Superior Court of California - San Diego ◆ Imperial County, California ◆ San Francisco International Airport

QUESTICA BUDGET CLIENT SUCCESS STORIES

14 - 11
Questica A Euna Solutions Brand
Select a lo go to learn m ore about h ow our clients are using Questica . • e @ SHELBY • ~~ ~'""~ CITY OF COUNTY i -
~if~ -- '%~,'t'Z.~ PALO (i; O Yl l ,.M l ~ T
Greensboro ~, • . ,,, ci!/1,.R f ~/ ,.~1!Rl(A LARGO DENVER ~II\\\~ ALTO {)/nMrlflJ n u l,ll l[ NIGM Ctn C3C3
We have a lot more confidence in the data that's in and coming out of Questica. The security structure in Questica is much more robust and it's just a really good powerful system. Some of the things that hadn't ever worked correctly in the old system, we now have. ?,ty,I_
HIGH POINT NORTH CAROllN:\
- Laura Altizer, Former Budget Pe rformance Manager
City of High Point
C3C3
i~
"
@monton
Questica's customer service and responsiveness are excellent. 11~, DENVER II' THE MILE HIGH CITY
- Kelly Greunke, Manager of Budget Operations
Office, City and County of Denver
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 6

ABOUT QUESTICA

OUR MISSION
“We’re on a mission to simplify the complexities of public sector finance, empowering brilliance at every turn.”
—TJ Parass, Co-Founder of Questica
At Questica, our mission is to empower many to work together in a secure environment, to take control of their budget, and make informed decisions. For the past 25 years, Questica has partnered with public sector organizations to enable data-driven budgeting and decisionmaking, while increasing data accuracy and productivity and improving stakeholder trust.

These organizations are modernizing their business processes using Questica’s budgeting, performance, transparency, and engagement software solutions.

OUR GOAL
Questica’s goal is to drive budget transformation by creating a single source of data truth. As a leader of budgeting preparation and management software since 1998, Questica partners with public sector organizations to better enable data-driven budgeting and decision-making, while increasing data accuracy, productivity and improving stakeholder trust.

Over 800 local and provincial governments, colleges, universities, K-12 schools, hospitals, healthcare facilities and non-profit organizations have eliminated spreadsheets using our budgeting, performance, transparency and engagement solutions. Across 50 states, and 12 provinces and territories, we’ve engineered custom budget solutions for public sector customers which seamlessly integrate with existing financial and other systems.

WHY CLIENTS CHOOSE US
We have an unmatched track record of success in implementing our solutions for government organizations and we stand firm in our ‘getting it done right the first time’ mission. We’ve integrated highly scalable solutions for public sector entities managing budgets of a few million, and other organizations multi-billion-dollar annual spending plans. Our team is comprised of technology experts, budget professionals and business specialists. We are passionate and friendly collaborators who enjoy teaming with our customers to find the right solution to meet their needs. 14 - 12
Questica proQoses a Software-asa-Service (SaaS) subscrir2tior.1 of our. ir.idustry leading multi-user Questica
Bud ~~-tion and our rofessior.ial
ser.vi i -"!"'--•.,..---:ri.J1111-...;;;: rat1 or.i
configuration
i r.n r2leroentati~.-~'--.. i.:..-•t .
© 900+ @ $120B+ 9 $15B+
............ _poofll
--- • 50
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 7

KEY BENEFITS OF QUESTICA

CLOUD-BASED
Questica Budget Suite is a cloud-based solution hosted on Questica’s secure Microsoft Azure server. Cloud-based solutions enable clients to access their budget data online at any time and from any location. Hosting on single tenant architecture means your budget data is isolated from other clients’, with the flexibility to choose when to upgrade to new versions of the product.

COLLABORATIVE
Budgeting is a people-centric process that requires communication and teamwork. The Questica Budget Suite is a collaborative platform that allows your budget managers to work with departments to prepare and manage budgets efficiently. We streamline budget access for financial and non-financial contributors; the result improves communication and expedites decision-making.

This is particularly important if staff work remotely.

FUNCTIONALITY
Questica Budget is feature-rich and provides powerful functionality for greater control and visibility into budgets. With the tools to calculate, analyze, forecast, report on, and develop what-if scenarios for budgets, users gain deeper financial insights while creating budgets that last. With seamless integration for flow of data to the existing ERP, users can build budgets based on accurate, real-time financial information.

CONFIGURABILITY
Configurability means fewer requirements for customization. This will save time, resources, and complexity both in the initial implementation, and through ongoing use as upgrades and enhancements are released. The bottom line is a significantly lower cost of ownership over your lifetime use of our product.

FLEXIBILITY
COVID-19 continues to challenge communities, heightening the need for local governments to make decisions quickly and accurately. Our product offers the capacity for multiple scenario models, for governments preparing for the future, and pivoting as plans change. When your plans shift, you don’t want to be limited by manual data entry, spreadsheets, or an inflexible legacy system. Questica Budget adapts with you, adjusting to your new budget trajectory to reallocate funds or evaluate potential cost savings.

INNOVATION
Innovation at Questica is driven by feedback on existing product features, and the anticipated need for new features that accommodate new challenges. Questica’s product strategy is based on feedback from our clients, all public sector organizations, and serves as a guiding star that directs our focus. From user forums to early adopter groups, Questica clients are with us every step of the way as we develop new features or improve the functionality of our product Suite. 14 - 13
-
•
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 8

QUESTICA
BUDGET

OVERVIEW

OPERATING MODULE
The Questica Budget Suite is an end-to-end budgeting system that will help you manage the budgeting process with greater efficiency and accuracy. We are confident that our budget system is the right application for your needs, providing powerful features that support ongoing budget development and reveal key budget insights that may have been hidden in a spreadsheet.

Questica Budget is designed for non-finance department and non-technical users to prepare and maintain their budgets directly in the system. Budgets can be categorized on an organizational basis where cost centers roll-up into their respective departments and divisions and can also be categorized on a fund basis where cost centers roll-up into their particular funds and fund categories. Cost centers can easily be moved from one department and division to another, as well as from one fund to the next. Additional hierarchical structures can be configured as needed.

Role-based security ensures that users have streamlined access to only the data and functions that they need. Cost center information can be maintained, and comments, notes, and attachments (e.g., scans, documents, or links) may be added to the budget or even to the detailed line items. Budgets can be managed at a monthly, quarterly, annual, or biennial basis. Grids are configurable and may consist of historical years, current year, and future forecast years. 14 - 14
- .,.,_ . ....... ~
■ I 1. -
-11111 11 11111 __ ., ____ _ e
2021 2861·Puf'l'IJIS1atlon 1 Main(A,c:tiw)
Sample Costing Center Information
·-----
11:::1
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 9

PERSONNEL PLANNING & BUDGETING MODULE

CAPITAL MODULE
Questica Budget’s Personnel Planning & Budgeting module performs like a calculator with advanced features, enabling accurate modeling and forecasting all costs associated with positions (filled and vacant) to accommodate the workforce budget. Step or pay increases, cost of living adjustments, new benefits, and other employee-related costs are all accounted for.

Each position is a record of all the information
required to calculate base wages, as well as
overhead costs such as benefits, allowances, and
employer taxes; each is attributed to the
appropriate GL Account (object code). Positions
paid according to a union contract are assigned a
pay grade and step, calculating pay from the pay
scale for that contract. Alternatively, a position’s
base wage can be entered as a distinct salary
value for each position, or as a percentile of the
range configured for a selected grade.

Questica Budget’s Capital module simplifies and centralizes the process of capital budget planning and execution. Users can import prior years’ budget data (actual costs and budget values) into Questica Budget, and create multi-year capital projects where they can identify their expenditures and funding sources, and make adjustments as they prepare their budgets.

Users can construct their capital projects on
an annual, quarterly, or monthly basis, enter
narrations or explanations for their requests
and categorize their projects based on
different criteria such as tangible capital
assets, fund(s), or project status. Requests
get escalated through the configurable
workflow system integrated within Questica
Budget. Project ranking can also be
administered according to user-defined
criteria, and multiple project scenarios can be
created for each project.

The Capital module also gives the ability to
manage budgeting activities related to grant
programs of varying complexities. The “type”
field on projects is commonly used to indicate
that the project is to be treated as a grant.
14 - 15
ti') * 0 0
Budget
....... -,,.."-- ........ -l'M11ft, 01111) olHIII
-- -"'-l'lll '"" . ,.,. fCJ,S,;,c.,.;-lif~ J.P:111
,.,_ "'" "'" ,, ... ~ .. ,, ..
--- IUII
... -... ~"
2022 • Ludhand
-· -
... 0111 1 .. ... ,, . ,.,.
"'"
~ .. .. ..
'""
l1f09uard (4007)
..... -· .. •~1,11
. ,.,.
"'"
~ ..

Sample Annual Costing Positions
. ,.,.
"'" .. ..
... o,u,,
- 11:1
Sample Monthly Costing - Single Position
--- 206 ----- 63.65 ---- --
$1.6M &" · ' _ _ .., o
------- •
""- . Sample Capital Improvement Plan Transparency - Interactive Visual Map www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 10

PERFORMANCE MODULE

SPECIAL FEATURES

STATISTICAL LEDGER

QUESTICA INTEGRATION SYSTEM (QIS)
Questica Budget’s Performance module
allows users to establish objectives and
track budget progress toward achieving
these objectives over time. Targets can be
identified by intended outcome, where
warning and critical threshold limits notify
users whenever budget performance
requires attention.

Measures, whether financial or statistical, may reference existing values already in the system, or may otherwise be manually entered. In either case, these measures can also be calculated based on other measures. They can be consolidated under various programs and can also be incorporated into an Organizational Scorecard. Responsibilities can be established for the various Programs and Measures, inclusive of due date and automated reminders, to facilitate workflow processing.

Questica Budget’s Performance module fully integrates with the rest of the Questica Budget Suite and leverages the Questica Dashboard platform. This functionality helps improve performance, encourages innovation within your team, encourages cost-effective practices, and delivers an enhanced level of transparency and accountability.

The Questica Budget Statistical Ledger allows budget staff to plan and track numbers other than spending dollars (e.g., hours worked, number of clients, resource utilization).

Staff can create a budget for any numeric data and work with it very much like financial budgets. This can be very useful for planning and tracking activities and outputs, and the data can be used as a guideline for building budgets. Statistical Ledger data can also be a component of a performance measurement plan.

Questica Budget will integrate with your city’s financial system via its proprietary Questica Integration System (QIS). QIS is a specialized, database-independent tool developed to exchange data between Questica Budget and external systems on a scheduled or as-needed basis. QIS also simplifies the integration process and reduces the time required to integrate Questica Budget with other customer systems or data warehouses.
14 - 16
1301-l!luiictlngP«mltAflpllcal,on~TWTW Smallfk,Nng•
, .- -------~
}.. ----.._/
.................
__ ,. ___ ,, ______ ..... -~-·--
-----·--·-·---·--- j
Sample Performance Dashboard
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 11

ALLOCATIONS
QIS provides a highly configurable framework for
importing or exporting budget related or nonfinancial data with existing and future external data sources, using API (Application Programming
Interface) and ETL (Extract, Transform and Load)
integration methods to ensure the budgeting
solution always reflects updated data.

The diagram on the right illustrates the Questica
Integration System. The Questica Budget
application is represented by the symbol at the top,
with the QIS system in the middle, and various
customer systems on the bottom. When data is
being extracted from an external system and
moved to Questica Budget, data would be moving
from the bottom to the top of the diagram. On the
other hand, when extracting data from Questica
Budget to insert into an external system, data
moves from the top to bottom.

The process can be scheduled or run on-demand by an authorized Questica user. Monitoring of scheduled integration tasks can be performed in many ways, but the most popular method is exception or failure notification, which can be configured to email one or more people. As detailed below, implementations can include three distinct interface points—two on the financial side and one on the HR/personnel side, and sometimes a fourth:

The Allocations tool within Questica Budget allows dollars to be moved throughout the Operating and Capital budget in a structured and balanced fashion. The functionality supports complex arrangements of allocations between many budget elements.

An employee’s cost may, for example, be split between multiple programs or cost centers, or Internal Service Provider budgets can be managed. In the latter example, an IT budget that is developed in detail like any other costing center may get allocated to other budget elements, perhaps using a cost driver such as ‘number of computers’ as the distribution basis. Once the allocation has been run, each recipient Costing Center will have a Destination Budget Line representing a portion of IT expenses, and the IT Costing Center budget will subsequently have a Recovery Budget Line that effectively zeroes out their allocated budget.
14 - 17
Actual cost
integration
Movement
upon approval
Salary sync
Budget
adjustments
(if required)
LJ

EXTRACT TRANSFORM

QUESTICA INTEGRATION SYSTEM
LOAD
. -----...... --.. -··-. -........ --, --.. -.... -... ---.. ···--. --. - --.. . . . ' I O I I 0 0 I I
. . . .

DATABASE FILE W EB SERVICE CLOUD
Questica Integrations Architecture
Actual costs are automatically imported into Questica Budget from the Financial System. This can be set up to occur at a variety of timeframes, but most often this automated process of copying the actual costs from the Financial System into the Questica Budget system occurs on a nightly basis. This allows users to see Budget vs. Actuals that are no more than 24 hours old.

When the budget is approved/adopted, it is typically moved from Questica Budget into the Financial System, the system of record.

The process for loading HR/payroll data into the Questica Budget system is via our 'Salaries Synchronization Tool'. This provides a mechanism to populate our salary and benefit engine with data from the city's HR records system. The integration can be run on demand, whenever updated personnel data is needed in the budget system.

As adjustments are made throughout the year (e.g., transfers, new budget requests, etc.), these changes can also be synchronized between Questica Budget and the Financial System so that budget revisions are always current in both systems. www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 12

ADVANCED CALCULATION ENGINE (ACE)

CHANGE REQUESTS/DECISION PACKAGES

ADVANCED SEARCHES

REPORTING AND DASHBOARDS
Questica Budget’s Advanced Calculation Engine is a powerful feature that brings familiar Excel functions into Questica Budget and allows users to create reusable calculation packages/models. The tool is simple to use and is designed to keep users working inside Questica Budget.

In addition to containing familiar Excel functions, there are also budget-specific functions documented in an integrated library, enabling users to reference data based on its qualities rather than by specific location.

For example, a function can be performed on the budget values for a particular account code or using the actuals from a certain statistical account. Functions can also be period-based, enabling the option to reference data from past months or years, or reference a range of data such as the average from the past three years for a given month or quarter.

Questica Budget’s Change Requests feature, also referred to as Budget Adjustments, Budget Modifications or Decision Packages, allow authorized users to process pre- and post-approval budget changes, both onetime and recurring, using a controlled process and workflow-based approval. These requests can be created individually, or they can be bundled together and treated apart from the general budget with their own dedicated approval process. Questica Budget does this in a controlled environment so that users can only submit, change, and see budget requests that are appropriate for them.

Questica Budget’s Advanced Search function is an intuitive user-facing feature that allows non-technical users to compose detailed searches using a variety of comparators and the ability to infinitely nest AND/OR groupings. Essentially, the Advanced Search functionality allows authorized users to perform sophisticated and highly dynamic data analytics and ad-hoc queries based on multiple dimensions, including specific criteria or descriptive words. This robust and powerful tool allows complex queries to be easily built up—one line at a time.

Questica Budget’s reporting and analytics capabilities are delivered as part of its core software feature set.

The system includes pre-built ad-hoc data views (i.e., queries), advanced “smart reports” that combine rows and columns of numbers with graphics (e.g., pie chart), 80+ pre-built ready-to-use reports, each with a variety of input selections, and pre-built dashboards with rich interactive visualizations of information that can be utilized to create actionable at-a-glance displays—all of which include data security to ensure users only see what they’re allowed to see. Standard reports leverage Microsoft’s SQL Server Reporting Services (SSRS) and can be copied and modified by budget staff without requiring programming skills. 14 - 18
,_ ______ .:;;;-=-::;:"'"=·-=--=------"'
I• -- -- •-··-
~ I I I I I I II I I I I
+ .. _ ,..,_ +--
·
--------·-
-------- Sample Fu/I-Featured Dashboard
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 13 QUESTICA’S

DIGITAL BUDGET

BOOK SOLUTION
Questica’s Digital Budget Book (DBB) solution is a user-friendly and comprehensive document management and financial reporting tool that enables our customers to create, collaborate, edit, approve, and publish an annual budget document with ease – eliminating the headaches often associated with managing multiple spreadsheets, version control issues, manual updates, and duplicating content.

DBB is directly integrated with the Questica Budget module, allowing budget information to be seamlessly refreshed on-demand. Paired with our Questica OpenBook interactive online transparency solution, customers can provide the community with a complete understanding of the budget that is presented in a manner geared for a non-financial audience.

Key aspects of Questica’s DBB include:
◆ GFOA compliant—meets all standards for GFOA Award Qualifying Book Production ◆ Automation—automates the creation of fund summary pages, charts, tables, and more ◆ Templates—creates new pages quickly with easy-to-use templates ◆ Multiple Formats—produces budget books in digital (online) and PDF (printed) formats ◆ Charts and Graphs—allows automatic updates of embedded narratives and smart charts 14 - 19
Budget Book
ffi{l ~ yville
T abie of Contents
--- --... c..-
. ...._...
_,._.....,. ... .....,. __ _
2023 Budget Book I Adopted Version ~
Council's Strategic Goals __
__
.....,_.,.1.._ __ •• .......,, __ ...... "--_"" .... -- , ______ .. .....,_ ....... ---... --.. -- h-- .----·----· .. -.,, .. mn....,.. ... --~--------,_ __ Economic Development Recreallon and Culture Tourism -·---- ------- ...... _., __ _ ---- :.:::.-=.-:::-
----·-· ---·- _., ___ _ _°"""' __ _
------- __ .. ___ _
----- -·--
Questica Digital Budget Book sample screenshot
D
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 14

OPENBOOK

TRANSPARENCY

AND DATA

VISUALIZATIONS

OPENBOOK CUSTOMER EXAMPLES
Questica Budget’s OpenBook tool fosters transparency for public agencies, enabling the information to be visualized in an array of charts, tables, bars, graphs, and GIS mapping for Capital planning. Like all Questica tools, OpenBook is intuitive and easy-to-learn. With descriptive text, informational pop-ups, filtering and sorting capabilities, diving in and discovering information is made easy for all stakeholders. 14 - 20
CalifomiaState University
Northridge
b ,_
Lafayette
COJ;SOUOAT!ill GO\lllll.NMllNT
Ope<ating Budget
-S244.2M
l!(ol(en Down by DMsbi
OpenBook - Sample Operating Budget: Interactive Chart
Select a logo to v isit our customers' Open Book websites. ,l/\'r1)!.Jc _ _ /4+\ _ _
~ CAL POLY
li1 :)l--1: SONOMA STATE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

SAN BERNARDINO
s~'..t~~~fuc,b UNIVERSITY
• * Pinellas~
LARGO County y
(llo6,1t1lf!j RJVER$1DE
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 15

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT OPTIONS
Today’s modern governments have recognized the traditional methods of procuring software through Request for Proposal are expensive, time consuming, and often very limiting in scope. An increasing number of customers have contracted with Questica utilizing the methods outlined below.

1. Take advantage of contract vehicles and cooperative purchasing agreements. Contract vehicles are commonly relied upon as the most efficient way for governments to buy goods and services. Questica is listed on many cooperative purchasing contracts, such as DIR, Carahsoft, SHI, NASPO, BuyBoard, Sourcewell, and Omnia. These contracts include several vendors and were established via a competitive bidding process, much like an RFP cycle.

2. “Sole source.” This method refers to opportunities where Questica is the only provider able to deliver the set of solutions that a government entity is looking for. This can justify the avoidance of an RFP, since there are simply no other vendors in the market who can deliver the necessary goods or services.

3. Piggyback contracts: To satisfy procurement policy, many Questica customers choose to piggyback from contracts already vetted by a competitive RFP process of similar size and scope. For example, The City of Spokane utilized a piggyback agreement (i.e., cooperative agreement statement) with City of Seattle to purchase Questica. Questica is open to helping explore best fit piggyback options with current customers.

4. Emergency Funding: State and local governments need the right tools to remain flexible and make critical data driven decisions. Several Questica customers, such as Imperial County, CA have invoked emergency purchasing measures to fund the purchase of Questica. The funding from the American Rescue Plan Act provides an opportunity for state and local governments to purchase new technology in support of expanding services to citizens and improving responsiveness.

Specifically, sections 602(c)(1)(C) and 603(c)(1)(C) of the Act provide recipients with broad latitude to use the Fiscal Recovery Funds for the provision of government services. Questica Budget now includes a built-in calculator which automates the lost revenue calculation formula as outlined in the guidance. Included below is sample verbiage that could be utilized to justify purchase of Questica Budget using ARPA funds.

American Rescue Plan Justification
◆ Whereas COVID-19 and the required response by the (name of local government) had a significant impact on the budget of (name of local government), and ◆ Whereas: expenditures for essential public health and safety workers were higher than budgeted to ensure public health welfare and safety concerns; and
◆ Whereas: remote work of non-essential (name of local government) staff resulting from stay-at-home orders and legislated social distancing in the workplace revealed the need for upgrading IT software and infrastructure; and
◆ Whereas: ____(name revenue source; e.g. sales tax, hotel tax, etc.) revenues in the (insert most full fiscal year) were reduced due to the economic impact of COVID-19 causing a budgeting shortfall, and ◆ Whereas: the (name of local government) needs to procure budgeting and performance management software that will enhance its ability to respond to the COVID-19 emergency and ◆ Whereas: the budgeting and performance management software will increase efficiency, improve constituent services, and enable remote work, and
◆ Whereas: the revenues to procure such software are not available due to the economic impacts of COVID-19 on the (name of local government) revenues.
◆ Now therefore be it resolved that the (name of local government) hereby declare that the use of American Rescue Plan Act funds in the amount of $______ be used to procure….

Should this method be the preferred procurement option, we are more than happy to facilitate reference conversation. 14 - 21
Questica A Euna Sotutk>n• Brand
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 16 Prepared for:

Hsuilee Lee
Deputy Finance Director
City of South Pasadena CA
August 24
th 2023
Prepared by:

Carlos Perez
Questica Ltd.

Questica Budget
Price Quote
Questica Budget
Price Quote
14 - 22
Budget
This proposal is subject to a review of your Chart of Accounts and a review of the Scope of Work. www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 17

QUESTICA BUDGET PRICE QUOTE
Quotation ID#: City of South Pasadena CA – 08242023
Description Qty. Total
Questica Budget Framework – All Modules
Operating License Seats Included
Personnel Planning & Budgeting License Seats Included
Capital License Seats Included
Unlimited Read-Only Licenses Included
Performance Measures Included
Allocations Included
Statistical Ledger Included
OpenBook Transparency Included
Questica Annual Software Subscription
(including software, maintenance, support and hosting) $19,500.00 $14,625.00 Questica Budget Framework – All Modules
Planning & Analysis Included
Consulting Not Included
Installation Included
Data Load & Verify Included
Accounting Integration Included
Customizations Not Included
Customized Reports Not Included
Training Included
Project Management Included
Total Questica Professional Services: (one-time fee) $10,000.00 GRAND TOTAL (Year 1) $24,625.00
14 - 23
Budget
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 18

PRICING NOTES
Quotation ID#: City of South Pasadena CA – 08242023
Pricing valid though: December 29th 2023
◆ Questica annual subscription is discounted to $14,625.00 in year 1 ◆ Questica annual subscription is based on a 5-year term ◆ Questica will apply a 5% inflationary increase beginning in year 2

Questica Annual Fees
▪ Year 1 is $24,625.00 (SaaS and Professional Services) ▪ Year 2 is $20,475.00 (includes 5% increase)
▪ Year 3 is $21,498.75 (includes 5% increase)
▪ Year 4 is $22,573.69 (includes 5% increase)
▪ Year 5 is $23,702.37 (includes 5% increase)
▪ Total 5 Year contract is $112,874.81
Above pricing US dollars. Applicable Taxes Extra. Pricing is not applicable in response to a formal RFP Process.

Terms of Payment
◆ Software:
▪ 100% upon Contract Effective Date (Net 30)
▪ Year 2 due 365 days from Contract Effective Date and annually thereafter ◆ Professional Services:
▪ Professional Services:
▪ Due 100% upon Contract Effective Date (Net 30)
14 - 24
j
J
PRICE QUOTE (CONT.) 1 .t'
Budget
www.questica.com © Copyright Questica. All rights reserved. 19

SUMMARY
Questica greatly appreciates the City of South Pasadena’s interest in learning more about our Company and our software. As stated, we welcome an opportunity to leverage our more than 25 years of success in public sector budgeting, to help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its budgeting process and to provide a technology solution that optimizes and supports the budget formulation and management cycle.

We are happy to address questions and engage in more detailed conversations to showcase how our software fits your requirements, our implementation approach, and the support our company provides. I would also be happy to facilitate introductions to current clients and would encourage you to connect with your peers to understand why they decided to partner with Questica - the most trusted solution for government organizations. 14 - 25
Budget
..

City Council
Agenda Report ITEM NO. ____
DATE: September 27, 2023
FROM: Arminé Chaparyan, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Luis Frausto, Management Services Director Tiara Solorzano, Management Assistant
SUBJECT: Consideration of the Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for August 29, 2023 and September 6, 2023
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council consider the approval of the minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting of September 6, 2023, Special Meetings of August 29, 2023 and September 6, 2023, Special Joint Meeting of September 6, 2023, and Special Housing Authority Meeting of September 6, 2023.

Executive Summary
Attached for the City Council’s consideration and approval are meeting minutes for various dates as listed on the agenda and hereby included as attachments to this staff report.

Background
The City Clerk’s Division is responsible for producing meeting minutes for the City Council meetings. Meeting minutes are used as the official record of the actions taken by the City at the direction of the City Council.

Key Performance Indicators and Strategic Plan
This item aligns with the Management Services Department’s Key Performance Indicator to provide quick access to information and accountability, ensuring public transparency.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact anticipated as Division staff is facilitating the work related to this project.

Attachments:

1. August 29, 2023 Special City Council Meeting Minutes

2. September 6, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes

3. September 6, 2023 Special Joint City Council Meeting Minutes 15 15 - 1
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes
May 17, 2023

4. September 6, 2023 Special Housing Authority Meeting Minutes 15 - 2
ATTACHMENT 1
August 29, 2023, Special City Council Meeting Minutes
15 - 3

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
15 - 4

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY

COUNCIL

M I N U T E S
TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2023, AT 6:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER:

The Special Meeting of the South Pasadena City Council was called to order by Mayor Primuth on Tuesday, August 29, 2023, at 6:49 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 1424 Mission Street, South Pasadena, California 91030.

ROLL CALL:

PRESENT Mayor Jon Primuth
Mayor Pro Tem Evelyn G. Zneimer
Councilmember Jack Donovan
Councilmember Michael A. Cacciotti
Councilmember Janet Braun
ABSENT None
Tiara Solorzano, Management Assistant, announced a quorum.

CITY STAFF PRESENT:

Arminé Chaparyan, City Manager David Snow, City Attorney and Roxanne Diaz, City Attorney were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Michael A. Cacciotti led the Flag Salute. 15 - 5
Special Meeting Minutes August 29, 2023
South Pasadena City Council Page 2

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUCEMENTS

1. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION-SIGNIFICANT

EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION
(Government Code Section 54945.9(d)(2))
Number of Potential Cases: 1
B. REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
(Government Code Section 54956.8)

1. Property: A triangular shaped portion of real property located at the intersection of Stoney Drive and San Pasqual Avenue in the City of Los Angeles and adjacent to City of South Pasadena baseball field
Agency Negotiator: Arminé Chaparyan, City Manager
Negotiating Party: City of Los Angeles
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

City Attorney Roxanne Diaz noted that the City Council recessed into with all councilmembers present.

City Attorney Diaz reported no reportable action.

PUBLIC COMMENT

2. PUBLIC COMMENT – GENERAL (AGENDA ITEMS ONLY)
Zoom Comments:

Gale Maltun spoke regarding the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.

Anne Bagasao spoke regarding the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.

In Person Comments:

Ed Simpson spoke regarding Dinosaur Farm and the item.

Beatrice Simpson spoke regarding the item and questions to Council.

Mark Gallatin spoke regarding the item and possible revisions.

Carol Kramer spoke regarding upzoning, the item, and provided written comments to the Clerk.
15 - 6
Special Meeting Minutes August 29, 2023
South Pasadena City Council Page 3
Clarice Knapp spoke regarding the Housing Element and discussion from a previous Planning Commission meeting.

Harry Knapp spoke regarding the Housing Element and zoning.

Jim Tavares spoke regarding building of new units, SB 330, and housing.

PRESENTATIONS

3. STUDY SESSION RELATED TO THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE,

DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ZONING TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS FOR REZONING OF
PROPERTIES CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT; AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS (ORDINANCES

RELATED TO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, EMPLOYEE HOUSING AND INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS).

Community Development Director Angelica Frausto-Lupo introduced staff present and Consultants present. Director Frausto-Lupo introduced the Housing Element, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.

Consultant Kaiser Rangwala provided a presentation on General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. Questions were raised by Council and answered by Kaiser Rangwala and Community Development Deputy Director, Alison Becker.

Senior Planner Dean Flores provided a presentation on the zoning text amendment.

Senior Planner Flores noted a Public Hearing was scheduled for September 18, 2023, and September 27, 2023. Questions were raised by members of the Council and answered by staff.

Interim Senior Planner Ben Jarvis provided a presentation on remaining 120-day Programs. Questions were raised by members of the Council and answered by staff.

Consultant Jillian Niery provided a presentation on the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) Summary. Concerns and questions were raised by members of the Council. Staff, Consultants, and City Attorney Snow addressed and discussed concerns and questions.

Mayor Primuth informed the Council of the discussion and work provided by the Planning Commission on this project.

Hearing no opposition, the report was received and filed.

PUBLIC COMMENT – CONTINUED
15 - 7
Special Meeting Minutes August 29, 2023
South Pasadena City Council Page 4

4. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT – GENERAL
This time is reserved for speakers in the Public Comment queue not heard during the first 30 minutes of Item No. 2. No new speakers will be accepted at this time.

COMMUNICATIONS

5. COUNCILMEMBER COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Donovan recognized the recipients of the Senior Champions Awards and thanked Community Services Department for their hard work on the event.

Councilmember Braun had no comments.

Councilmember Cacciotti had no comments.

Mayor Pro Tem Zneimer had no comments.

Mayor Primuth had no comments.

6. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Arminé Chaparyan had no comments.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further matters, Mayor Primuth adjourned the Special Study Session Meeting of the City Council at 9:19 P.M.

Respectfully submitted:
_______________________________
Mark Perez
Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED:
_______________________________
Jon Primuth
Mayor
ATTEST:
15 - 8
Special Meeting Minutes August 29, 2023
South Pasadena City Council Page 5
________________________________
Mark Perez
Deputy City Clerk
Approved at City Council Meeting: September 27, 2023
15 - 9

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
15 - 10
ATTACHMENT 2
September 6, 2023, Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 15 - 11

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
15 - 12

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING

M I N U T E S
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2023, AT 7:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER:

The Regular Meeting of the South Pasadena City Council was called to order by Mayor Primuth on Wednesday, September 6, 2023, at 8:12 P.M. The City Council Chambers are located at 1424 Mission Street, South Pasadena, California.

ROLL CALL:

PRESENT Mayor Jon Primuth
Councilmember Janet Braun
Councilmember Michael A. Cacciotti
Councilmember Jack Donovan
ABSENT Mayor Pro Tem Evelyn G. Zneimer
Mayor Pro Tem’s absence was excused without objection.

Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk, announced a quorum.

CITY STAFF PRESENT:

Arminé Chaparyan, City Manager; Roxanne Diaz, City Attorney; Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Flag Salute was led by Councilmember Donovan.
15 - 13
Regular Meeting Minutes South Pasadena City Council September 6, 2023

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION
(Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1))

1. Sanchez v. City of South Pasadena, et. al. (LASC Case No. 23STLC01516).

2. City of South Pasadena, et al. vs California Department of Transportation, et al. (LASC Case No. 21STCP01779)
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATIONSIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54945.9(d)(2))
Number of Potential Cases: 1
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION-INITIATION

OF LITIGATION
(Government Code Section 54945.9(d)(4))
Number of Potential Cases: 2
None.

PUBLIC COMMENT

2. PUBLIC COMMENT – GENERAL (NON-AGENDA ITEMS)
In-Person Public Comments:

Chuck Saint spoke regarding the Slow Streets program.

Gino Thomas spoke regarding property and a construction project.

Zoom Public Comments:

Yvonne LaRose spoke regarding the recent incident involving active shooters in other Cities.

PRESENTATIONS

3. CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION
Deputy City Clerk Mark Perez and Mayor Primuth presented proclamation. 15 - 14
Regular Meeting Minutes South Pasadena City Council September 6, 2023

Councilmember Cacciotti stated that everyone is responsible and has an obligation for preventing cancer and creating cleaner energy. Cars and all emissions are directly connected to cancer as noted by studies.

4. STAFF INTRODUCTION
Community Development Department:

Dean Flores, Senior Planner
Tatiana Marin, Planning Technician
Community Development Director Angelica Frausto-Lupo introduced Dean Flores, Senior Planner, and Planning Technician, Tatiana Marin.

Management Services Department:

Tina Lopez, Human Resources and Risk Manager
Management Services Director Luis Frausto introduced Tina Lopez, Human Resources and Risk Manager.

Public Works Department:

Lance Escalera, Electrician
Deputy Director of Public Works Anteneh Tesfaye introduced Electrician, Lance Escalera.

5. WESTERN ASSET AND MORGAN STANLEY PRESENTATION
Finance Manager Albert Trinh presented on item and introduced consultants, David Paulus from Western Asset and Bryan Longpre from Morgan Stanley.

COMMUNICATIONS

6. REORDERING OF, ADDITIONS, OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA None.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Councilmember Donovan requested to pull Item No. 9 for separate discussion. A motion was made by Councilmember Cacciotti, seconded by Councilmember Braun and approved by roll call vote to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, as modified by the additional documents. The motion carried 4-0-1, by the following vote:
15 - 15
Regular Meeting Minutes South Pasadena City Council September 6, 2023

AYES: Braun, Cacciotti, Donovan, Mayor Primuth
NOES: None.

ABSENT: Zneimer
ABSTAINED: None.

7. APPROVAL OF PREPAID WARRANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,057.11; GENERAL CITY WARRANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,739,042.46; ONLINE PAYMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,177.80; TRANSFERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $194,951.27; VOIDS IN THE AMOUNT OF ($220.00); PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $805,865.12
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Warrants as presented.

A motion was made to approve recommendation on the Consent Calendar.

8. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 16, 2023, JANUARY 18, 2023, FEBRUARY 9, 2023
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council consider the approval of the minutes for the Regular Meetings of August 16, 2023, January 18, 2023, and Special Meeting of February 9, 2023.

A motion was made to approve recommendation on the Consent Calendar as modified by the additional documents.

9. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS TO TEREX CORPORATION

AND CALIFORNIA MAINTENANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $38,546.50
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Consider the approval of payment to Terex Corporation (Terex) for past invoices in the amount of $23,763.63; and

2. Consider the approval of payment to California Maintenance and Environmental (CME) for past invoices in the amount of $14,782.87.

Public Works Director Ted Gerber presented the item. Staff responded to questions raised by the City Council.

COUNCIL ACTION AND MOTION
This item was pulled for separate discussion by Councilmember Donovan. A motion was made by Councilmember Cacciotti, seconded by Councilmember Donovan, and approved by roll call vote to approve Item No. 9, as presented.

The motion carried 4-0-1, by the following vote:
15 - 16
Regular Meeting Minutes South Pasadena City Council September 6, 2023

AYES: Braun, Cacciotti, Donovan, Mayor Primuth
NOES: None.

ABSENT: Zneimer
ABSTAINED: None.

10.RESOLUTION APPROVING CERTAIN EASEMENT AND TRANSFER OF

APPURTENANT FACILITIES RELATED TO THE INSTALLATION OF VEHICLE

CHARGING STATIONS ON CITY PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO GRANT AND EXECUTE EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY

PURPOSES
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution to approve certain easements and transfer of appurtenant facilities related to the installation of vehicle charging stations in the form approved by the City Attorney and Public Works Director and authorize the City Manager to execute the same; and authorize the City Manager to grant and execute easements generally for public utility purposes related to City projects.

RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING

CERTAIN EASEMENTS AND TRANSFER OF

APPURTENANT FACILITIES RELATED TO THE

INSTALLATION OF VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS ON

CITY PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO GRANT AND EXECUTE EASEMENTS ON

BEHALF OF THE CITY FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES
A motion was made to approve recommendation on the Consent Calendar.

Resolution No. 7829 was adopted.

11.CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2023- 2024 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM AND CONTINUATION OF THE EXISTING DECLARATION OF STAGE 2: SERIOUS WATER SUPPLY

SHORTAGE
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of:

1. The proposed Water Conservation Programs for the 2023-2024 fiscal year; and

2. The continuation of the existing Stage 2: Serious Water Supply Shortage.

A motion was made to approve recommendation on the Consent Calendar. 15 - 17
Regular Meeting Minutes South Pasadena City Council September 6, 2023

12.CONSIDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE PUBLIC WORKS

COMMISSION
Recommendation
Mayor Primuth recommends that the City Council consider the appointment of Omari Ferguson to the Public Works Commission for a partial term ending December 31, 2024.

A motion was made to approve recommendation on the Consent Calendar.

13.APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF VEHICLE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION

RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOUTH PASADENA APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A
2023 CHEVY BOLT ELECTRIC VEHICLE, WITH RELATED

EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $38,000
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of a resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to purchase a 2023 Chevrolet Bolt electric vehicle with related equipment and accessories in an amount not to exceed $38,000, and approve the single-source procurement pursuant to Section 2-99-29(19) and the City’s Purchasing Policy.

A motion was made to approve recommendation on the Consent Calendar.

Resolution No. 7830 was adopted.

14.SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ROTH STAFFING COMPANIES, L.P. FOR TEMPORARY STAFFING

SERVICES FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE TERM
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Roth Staffing Companies, L.P. for temporary staffing services for the extension of the term and authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment.

A motion was made to approve recommendation on the Consent Calendar. 15 - 18
Regular Meeting Minutes South Pasadena City Council September 6, 2023

15.AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC., FOR TEMPORARY STAFFING SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $89,000
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to amend the Professional Services Agreement with Robert Half International Inc. for temporary staffing services, to increase the contract amount by $89,000 to continue services through the end of December 2023, and

2. Approving the transfer in the amount of $84,000 in State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds from Account No. 101-3010-3041-8020 (Finance- Special Department Expense) to Account No. 101-2030-2034-8170-000 (Management ServicesProfessional Services) to fund the amendment.

A motion was made to approve recommendation on the Consent Calendar.

ACTION/DISCUSSION

16.CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING THE

SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE FACILITIES AND PARKS SUPERVISOR

RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOUTH PASADENA ADOPTING A SALARY RANGE FOR

THE PARKS AND FACILITIES SUPERVISOR

CLASSIFICATION
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of a Resolution approving and establishing the salary schedule for the Facilities and Parks Supervisor classification.

Management Services Director Luis Frausto presented the item. Staff responded to questions raised by the City Council.

COUNCIL ACTION AND MOTION
A motion was made by Councilmember Cacciotti, seconded by Councilmember Donovan approved by roll call vote to approve Item No. 16, as presented by staff. The motion carried 4-0-1, by the following vote:

AYES: Braun, Cacciotti, Donovan, Mayor Primuth
NOES: None.

ABSENT: Zneimer
ABSTAINED: None.
15 - 19
Regular Meeting Minutes South Pasadena City Council September 6, 2023

Resolution No. 7831 was adopted.

17.STATUS OF THE 626 PROSPECT RESERVE ACCOUNT
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file.

Deputy Finance Director/Controller Hsiulee Tran presented the item. Staff responded to questions raised by the City Council.

Hearing no opposition, the presentation was received and filed.

18.CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT – GENERAL
None.

COMMUNICATIONS

19.COUNCILMEMBER COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Donovan had no comments.

Councilmember Braun had no comments.

Mayor Primuth had no comments.

Councilmember Cacciotti gave a presentation on his recent attendance at the Ad Hoc Meeting for the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments for Mental Health, the Orange Grove Luncheon, and noted various instances of residents in violation of the Gas-Powered Leaf Blower Ban.

20.CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Chaparyan had no comments.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further matters, Mayor Primuth adjourned the meeting of the City Council at 9:43 P.M.

PUBLIC COMMENT – CONTINUED
15 - 20
Regular Meeting Minutes South Pasadena City Council September 6, 2023

Respectfully submitted:
_______________________________
Mark Perez
Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED:
_______________________________
Jon Primuth
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Mark Perez
Deputy City Clerk
Approved at City Council Meeting:
15 - 21

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
15 - 22
ATTACHMENT 3
September 6, 2023, Special Joint City Council Meeting Minutes 15 - 23

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
15 - 24

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY

COUNCIL AND THE AD HOC CITY

LEASED RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

COMMITTEE

M I N U T E S
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2023, AT 6:01 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER:

The Special Joint Meeting of the South Pasadena City Council and the Ad Hoc City Leased Recreational Facilities Committee was called to order by Mayor Primuth on Wednesday, September 06, 2023, at 6:05 P.M. in the Amedee O. “Dick” Richards, Jr.

Council Chambers, located at 1424 Mission Street, South Pasadena, California.

ROLL CALL:

PRESENT Mayor Jon Primuth
Councilmember Janet Braun
Councilmember Michael A. Cacciotti
Councilmember Jack Donovan
Commissioner Michael Siegal
Commissioner Victoria Rocha
Commissioner Albert Ocon
ABSENT Mayor Pro Tem Evelyn G. Zneimer
Commissioner Rona Bortz
Commissioner Fred Findley
Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk, announced a quorum.

CITY STAFF PRESENT:

Arminé Chaparyan, City Manager; Roxanne Diaz, City Attorney; Tiara Solorzano, Management Assistant; Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. 15 - 25
Special Joint Meeting Minutes September 06, 2023
South Pasadena City Council and Ad Hoc Facilities Committee Page 2 Without objection Mayor requested to take staff presentation prior to Public Comment.

PUBLIC COMMENT

1. PUBLIC COMMENT
In-Person Public Comment:

The following individuals spoke regarding the Arroyo Seco Golf Course:
• Deborah Fox
• Jama Meyer
• Sheila Ballesteros, president of SP Women’s Golf Club. • Sue Shearer
• Brook Collins
• Robert Flores
• Ed Simpson
• Bee Simpson
• Greg Yu
• Thomas R.
• Gail Malton
• Mark Haines
• Brian Samuels
• Eric Dunlap
• Richard Lam
Sam Burgess spoke regarding the Arroyo Seco Golf Course and the horse trail.

Zoom Public Comments:

The following individuals spoke regarding the Arroyo Seco Golf Course:
• Brian Welsh
• Steven Lawrence

ACTION/DISCUSSION

2. RECEIVE AND FILE THE “ARROYO SECO GOLF COURSE MARKET SUPPORT AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS REPORT”, DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION, IF ANY, ON THE NEXT STEPS RELATED TO THE REPORT’S

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDER THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CITY

LEASED RECREATIONAL FACILITY AD HOC COMMITTEE
15 - 26
Special Joint Meeting Minutes September 06, 2023
South Pasadena City Council and Ad Hoc Facilities Committee Page 3 Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Receive and file the “Arroyo Seco Golf Course Market Support and Financial Analysis Report” (Report);

2. Discuss and provide direction to staff regarding next steps, including development of a Master Plan for the Arroyo Seco Golf Course property; and

3. Consider the dissolution of the City Leased Recreational Facility Ad Hoc Committee.

Sheila Pautsch, Community Services Director gave a presentation. Jean Krikorian, Dave Sams and staff responded to questions raised by the City Council.

COUNCIL ACTION AND MOTION
Councilmember Braun expressed support of an RFP for the master study. She opined that the Golf Course would need to be assessed with the restaurant and restrooms as a whole. She is in support of the item being further studied and suggested looking into “Top Golf”.

Councilmember Donovan stated that he and Councilmember Cacciotti were liaisons working on this Ad Hoc Committee in the initial stages of this project and emphasized the past neglect of the site that they observed. He highlighted the progress made in the past two years and asked to look at the entire picture proposed by ProForma.

Councilmember Cacciotti expressed his agreement with most of the sentiments stated by the public. He went on to emphasize that he would never let anything be developed in the Golf Course. He thanked the committee and staff for the research and time they’ve taken to look into the issue, such as visiting local golf courses throughout the area and speaking to their management and attendees. He highlighted how the golf course is the only green 18-hole golf course that is maintained by all electric mowers powered by recycled Tesla batteries in the world for the last three years.

Councilmember Cacciotti proposed that the City Council receive and file the report and gave direction to improve the driving range, maintain the golf course, look at miniature golf whether that be “Pop Stroke” or something else, provide improvements to the bathrooms and clubhouse. All of this should be done while keeping the essence of the Arroyo Seco. He is in support of keeping the 18-hole course but directed that improvements be made. He expressed his opposition of the dissolution of the Ad Hoc City Leased Recreational Facilities Committee.

Mayor Primuth gave direction to remove the conversion of the 18-hole golf course to a 9-hole golf course as an option. He emphasized that the City can grow with the 18-hole course and make it a great experience for all with a Par 15 - 27
Special Joint Meeting Minutes September 06, 2023
South Pasadena City Council and Ad Hoc Facilities Committee Page 4 3 experience while maintaining the historical aspect. There are ways to reuse this facility and customize it with a nice food and drink venue that looks like South Pasadena. He recommends we keep the driving range with technology and mini golf to keep incoming revenue. Mayor Primuth requested to dissolve the Ad Hoc Committee and have the council reform the committee.

Councilmember Cacciotti agrees with reforming the committee if dissolved today.

Councilmember Braun believes Top Tracer component is very attractive to the current golfer and believes that is where the revenue will come from.

Councilmember Cacciotti stated that he would like to keep some bays with no technology.

City Manager Chaparyan stated the goal for tonight was to present the analysis and council provide direction to pursue a Request for Proposals (RFP) and the components of the RFP such as community engagement. The City Manager stated that the existing Ad Hoc Committee would be dissolved and staff would come back to the Council with a reimagined ad hoc committee with a different role as the City proceeds with the RFP process. Staff would then have that conversation with the Council as to what they are looking for in terms of a new ad hoc committee. There was no City Council objection to the dissolution of the existing ad hoc committee.

Councilmember Cacciotti agreed with the City Manager but wants to ensure the committee is not forgotten and suggested month to month renting of facility for restaurant as soon as possible. He suggested ideas of currently having a canopy at the range.

Mayor Primuth suggested the City Council fast track the implementation, so no opportunities are missed. The priority is the restaurant.

Councilmember Braun agrees with the City Manager that we should have a short-term use of the restaurant while still going forward with an RFP.

City Manager Chaparyan stated that we can do something short-term for the restaurant and assured Cacciotti that this is a high priority.

Direction was provided to the City Manager.

ADJOURNMENT
15 - 28
Special Joint Meeting Minutes September 06, 2023
South Pasadena City Council and Ad Hoc Facilities Committee Page 5 There being no further matters, Mayor Primuth adjourned the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Ad Hoc City Leased Recreational Facilities Committee at 7:58 P.M.

Respectfully submitted:
_______________________________
Mark Perez
Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED:
_______________________________
Jon Primuth
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Mark Perez
Deputy City Clerk
Approved at City Council Meeting:
15 - 29

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
15 - 30
ATTACHMENT 4
September 6, 2023, Special Housing Authority Meeting Minutes 15 - 31

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
15 - 32

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

CITY COUNCIL
HOUSING AUTHORITY – BOARD OF DIRECTORS

M I N U T E S
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 06, 2023, AT 7:01 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER:

The Special Meeting of the South Pasadena Housing Authority Board of Directors was called to order by Chair Primuth on Wednesday, September 06, 2023, at 8:21 P.M. in the Amedee O. “Dick” Richards, Jr. Council Chambers, located at 1424 Mission Street, South Pasadena, California.

ROLL CALL:

PRESENT Mayor/Chair Jon Primuth
Councilmember/Authority Member Janet Braun
Councilmember/Authority Member Michael A. Cacciotti
Councilmember/Authority Member Jack Donovan
ABSENT Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Evelyn G. Zneimer
Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk, announced a quorum.

CITY STAFF PRESENT:

Arminé Chaparyan, City Manager/Executive Director; Roxanne Diaz, City Attorney; Tiara Solorzano, Management Assistant; Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
15 - 33
Special Housing Authority Meeting Minutes September 06, 2023 South Pasadena Housing Authority Board of Directors Page 2

PUBLIC COMMENT

1. PUBLIC COMMENT
Zoom Public Comment
Yvonne LaRose spoke regarding the item.

CONSENT CALENDAR

2. RESOLUTION TO DECLARE PROPERTIES EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND AND

AUTHORIZE PROPERTIES TO BE PUT OUT TO OPEN, COMPETITIVE BID FOR

AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council, sitting as the Board of Directors of the South Pasadena Housing Authority, adopt a Resolution to:

1. Declare those real properties owned by the South Pasadena Housing Authority identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 5315-003-902, 5315-003- 903, and 5315-003-904 exempt surplus land; and

2. Authorize the properties to be put out to open, competitive bid for an affordable housing development in accordance with Government Code section 54221(f)(1)(F)(i).

RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, SITTING AS THE BOARD OF

DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTH PASADENA HOUSING AUTHORITY,

DECLARING THAT REAL PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE HOUSING

AUTHORITY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA AND
IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NOS. 5315-003-902, 5315- 003-903, AND 5315-003-904 ARE EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND,

AUTHORIZING THE PROPERTIES TO BE PUT OUT TO OPEN,

COMPETITIVE BID FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54221(f)(1)(F)(i), FINDING THAT THIS RESOLUTION IS

EXEMPT FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, PURSUANT TO SECTION
15061(B)(3) OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, AND TAKING

RELATED ACTIONS
Leah Demarest, Senior Planner gave a presentation. Staff responded to questions raised by the City Council.
15 - 34
Special Housing Authority Meeting Minutes September 06, 2023 South Pasadena Housing Authority Board of Directors Page 3

BOARD ACTION AND MOTION
A motion was made by Authority Member Cacciotti, seconded by Authority Member Braun, and approved by roll call vote to approve Item No. 2 as presented.

The motion carried 4-0-1, by the following vote:

AYES: Braun, Cacciotti, Donovan, Chair Primuth
NOES: None.

ABSENT: Zneimer
ABSTAINED: None.

Housing Authority Resolution No. 2023-01 HA was adopted.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further matters, Chair Primuth adjourned the meeting of the Housing Authority Board of Directors at 8:34 P.M.

Respectfully submitted:
_______________________________
Mark Perez
Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED:
_______________________________
Jon Primuth
Mayor/Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Mark Perez
Deputy City Clerk
Approved at City Council Meeting:
15 - 35
City Council
Agenda Report ITEM NO. ____
DATE: September 27, 2023
FROM: Arminé Chaparyan, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Angelica Frausto-Lupo, Community Development Director Alison Becker, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director Matt Chang, Planning Manager
Robert (Dean) Flores, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Concurrent continued hearings – Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report, adoption of a Resolution adopting a new General Plan, new Downtown Specific Plan, and rescission of Mission Street Specific Plan. Introduction and first reading of an Ordinance to amend the South Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 36 (Zoning Code) and Zoning Map pertaining to rezoning the existing Focus Area Overlay District to Mixed-Use Overlay District and increase density in certain residential zoning districts in compliance with the new General Plan and the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Introduction and first reading of Ordinances to amend the Zoning Code pertaining to 120-day implementation programs in the 2021-2029 Housing Element (Project)
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council hold and conclude the continued hearings and then consider the approval of the resolutions and introduce first reading of ordinances as follows:

1. Adopt a Resolution to certify and adopt the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) prepared for the Project, make required findings, adopt Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations;

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

3. Introduce first reading of an Ordinance to rescind the Mission Street Specific Plan (MSSP) upon the effective date of the DTSP;

4. Introduce first reading of an Ordinance to amend the South Pasadena Municipal Code (SPMC) pertaining to rezoning of properties consistent with the new General Plan and the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element which will do the following:
16 - 1
16 General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

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 Area Overlay District and replace it with the newly established MixedUse Overlay District; c. Increase density in the RM (Residential Medium Density), RH (Residential High Density), and Mixed-Use Overlay District in compliance with the Housing Element Programs;
d. Amend other Code Sections relating to ancillary changes to the SPMC regarding reference to the new DTSP, adoption of the new Zoning Map, and minor changes to the residential and commercial zoning district standards in relation to the rezoning; and,
e. Amend the Zoning Map to eliminate the Focus Area Overlay District and the MSSP boundary, and replace them with the Mixed-Use Overlay District and the DTSP boundary, respectively.

5. Introduce first reading of an Ordinance to amend the South Pasadena Municipal Code Division 36.370 (Affordable Housing Incentives) to revise regulations to conform to State Density Bonus law (California Government Code Section 65915);

6. Introduce first reading of an Ordinance to amend the South Pasadena Municipal Code Division 36.220 (Residential Zoning Districts), Division 36.350 (Standards for Specific Land Uses), and Division 36.700 (Definitions / Glossary), relating to Employee Housing; and,

7. Introduce first reading of an Ordinance to amend the South Pasadena Municipal Code Division 36.375 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements) relating to inclusionary housing requirements.

Executive Summary
The City is updating the General Plan to be consistent with the 2021-2029 (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, amending the Zoning Code and Zoning Map to increase density in the RM and RH zones, creation of a Mixed-Use Overlay District and development standards, updating the Zoning Map, and implementation of several programs identified in the Housing Element (Project).

A Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was prepared to analyze the proposed Project. A Notice of Preparation was circulated in 2018, with a Recirculated Notice of Preparation issued in 2021. The Draft PEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period between July 24, 2023 and September 6, 2023. A Final PEIR, including responses 16 - 2
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

to all comments received on the Draft PEIR has been prepared for the Project and will need to be certified and adopted in conjunction with approving the Project.

Public testimony has brought to light internal inconsistencies in the adopted Housing Element, particularly related to Table VI-51, Downtown Specific Plan Rezoning Capacity Analysis. Staff is drafting a methodology to present to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and to City Council to correct the errors in the Table. Any amendment of the adopted Housing Element will necessitate a formal public review and approval process.

Background
Sections 65300 et. seq. of the California Government Code requires each city 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 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) 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 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 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 adopted Housing Element is one of the State-mandated 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 COVID-19 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 proposed plans serve as the City’s guiding documents, providing the basis and policy framework for decision-makers. These documents provide direction regarding the 16 - 3
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

physical development, resource conservation, and character of the City, and establish a realistic, non-residential (commercial) development capacity for the City. The Housing Element serves as the policy guide 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 EA covers not only the Housing Element, but also the actions for implementing certain Housing Element Programs included in the overall proposed project.

Those program implementation actions, however, were also included in the scope of the proposed project analyzed in the PEIR.

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 MSSP and directed staff to commence the process.

On November 16, 2016, the City Council approved a contract with Rangwala Associates to update the City’s General Plan and MSSP. The public engagement process began on January 25, 2017, with a Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. During that meeting, staff were directed to expand the MSSP 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 (EIR) 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 nonresidential space. Eventually, the General Plan would propose 589 additional units, and that number was used in the original environmental analysis in 2018/2019.

The majority of the work and community outreach that crafted the Draft General Plan and DTSP was completed in the 2017-2018 timeframe. The documents reflect the community’s vision that were identified at that time. The project’s consultant, Rangwala Associates, conducted extensive public outreach, including stakeholder interviews, 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 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 16 - 4
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

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 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/DTSP project. Given the difference 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 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 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.

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 must be revised to reflect the revised population and housing goals listed in the 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 16 - 5
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

allows for additional by-right units on single-family lots (such as Senate Bill 9), 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.

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 Housing Element on May 30, 2023, was consistent with this legal deadline.

The City now has an adopted Housing Element, but must still adopt an updated General Plan and DTSP, along with Zoning Code/Map Amendments that implement several programs identified in the Housing Element, including, but are not limited to, increase density in certain zoning districts to accommodate the City’s RHNA obligation and updating City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. 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 Ordinances no later than September 27, 2023. Upon adoption of the new General Plan, DTSP, and Zoning Ordinances, the City would be in compliance with State law and the Court Order.

Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission considered this Project at its meetings on August 8, 21, and 23, 2023. At the August 8th meeting, Planning Commission created an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Commissioners Lesak and Swanborn to further analyze development requirements in the DTSP. On August 21st, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions to recommend that the City Council 1) certify the PEIR prepared for the Project, 2) adopt the new General Plan and DTSP to supersede the MSSP, and 3) amend the Zoning Code for several Housing Element programs. An additional Planning Commission special meeting was held on August 23 to receive feedback from the Commission on the Zoning Code and Map Amendment pertaining to density increase and the creation of a MixedUse Overlay District. At the end of the meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Zoning Code and Map Amendments.
16 - 6
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

City Council Study Session
On August 29, 2023, the City Council conducted a Study Session on the Project. 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 Code 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. As the meeting was a Study Session, no action was taken on the item.

City Council Public Hearing
On September 18, 2023, the City Council held duly-noticed public hearings on the proposed General Plan, DTSP, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendment pertaining to density increase, and Zoning Code Amendments pertaining to the 120-day Housing Element programs. The Council considered the staff reports and presentations prepared for the Project, received public comments during the meeting, and conducted Council discussion. At the end of the public hearings, the City Council continued the public hearing items to the next City Council meeting scheduled on September 27, 2023.

Public testimony has brought to light internal inconsistencies in the adopted Housing Element, particularly related to Table VI-51, Downtown Specific Plan Rezoning Capacity Analysis. Staff is drafting a methodology to present to HCD and to City Council to correct the errors in the Table. Any amendment of the adopted Housing Element will necessitate a formal public review and approval process.

Analysis – General Plan / Downtown Specific Plan
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.
16 - 7
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

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.

The proposed General Plan seeks to preserve the City’s existing 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
16 - 8
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

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 would accommodate these units, directing development into urban corridors along major arterials, including the DTSP area. Established single-family neighborhoods would be preserved to the greatest extent possible. The proposed General Plan and DTSP promote walkable, livable communities, where residents would not need to rely on automobile use for their daily transportation needs.

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.
16 - 9
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

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:

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 16 - 10
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

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. 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.

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 16 - 11
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

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 is a companion document to the General Plan and Housing Element. The former MSSP has been expanded to include Fair Oaks Avenue, and will be renamed the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). The intention of the DTSP is to build upon the success of the previous MSSP. The new DTSP includes policies and strategies to preserve historic assets, encourage contextual infill development of vacant and underutilized parcels, 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 General Plan by promoting orderly growth and by utilizing existing infrastructure.

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 Avenue 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.

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 16 - 12
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

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 Municipal Code. Approval of the DTSP will supersede the existing MSSP, 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 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 the housing capacity being considered at that time. When the RHNA was finalized at 2,067 housing units (2,775 units including the required buffer), necessary adjustments were proposed for the General Plan 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. 16 - 13
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 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.” The upcoming ballot initiative is included in the discussion 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.

Analysis – Zoning Code/Map Amendment
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 Code and Zoning Map Amendments on September 27, 2023, with second readings calendared for October 4, 2023.

Zoning Code Amendment Standards for Increased Density
The proposed Zoning Code 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. 16 - 14
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

In order to implement the new changes into the Zoning Code, the City hired MIG (Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman) to prepare the draft Zoning Code Amendment changes consistent with the Housing Element and General Plan. In order to comply with the Housing Element programs, 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.

Zoning District/Overlay
Zone
Current 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
Focus 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 Zoning Code 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 Focus Area Overlay with newly established Mixed-Use Overlay The existing Focus 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.

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,

1 Found on page II-39 of the 1998 General Plan (Section 2.7 – Specific Focus Areas) 16 - 15
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

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 Focus Area Overlay and will be replaced as follows:

Existing Focus Areas Existing 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 Focus Areas will be replaced by a MixedUse 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. 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.

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 Zoning Code Amendment will establish development standards for multifamily 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.

2 See Figure B3.4 Land Use Map in General Plan update document (p. 61) 16 - 16
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

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.
• 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 Zoning Code 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 (Residential Low Density) and RE (Residential Estate) zones. The RE zone is changing from a range of 1-3.5 dwelling units/acre to a maximum of 3 dwelling 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 multifamily/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. The full proposed Zoning Code Amendment can be found in Attachment 4 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 Zoning Text Amendments are in red and the Planning Commission changes are highlighted. The Commission’s recommended changes to the Amendments are in the following categories:

1. The maximum floor area by story,

2. Maximum elevation above and below street/sidewalk level,

3. Parking and site access, and

4. Private open space requirements
16 - 17
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

Analysis – Zoning Code Amendment (120-Day Implementation Programs) The project consists of Zoning Code Amendments that will bring the SPMC into compliance with State law within 120 days of the approval of the Housing Element.

Specifically, the Project addresses three Housing Element Programs: Program 2.e— Facilitate Density Bonus Projects with On-site Affordable Housing; Program 2.h— Incentivize Special-Needs Housing; and Program 2.m—Update Inclusionary Housing Regulations. The proposed Zoning Text Amendments are discussed in detail below:

SPMC Division 36.370 (Affordable Housing Incentives)
Changes are proposed to SPMC Division 36.370 (Affordable Housing Incentives) of SPMC to implement Housing Element Program 2.e—Facilitate Density Bonus for Projects with On-site Affordable Housing. Changes would be made to Sections 36.370.010,

36.370.020, 36.370.030, 36.370.040, 36.370.050, 36.370.060, 36.370.070, 36.370.080,

36.370.090, 36.370.100, and 36.370.110. Due to the number of text revisions with the Project, it is not feasible to include all of the proposed changes in this staff report. The proposed amendments can be found in the Attachment. While multiple revisions to Division 36.370 are proposed, the changes reflect text clean-ups that would make the City’s code language consistent with State law and are considered routine.

SPMC Division 36.350 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) Changes are proposed to Table 2-2 in SPMC Section 36.220.030 (Residential Zoning District Land Uses and Permit Requirements), along with Divisions 36.350 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) and Section 36.700.020 (Definitions of Specialty Terms and Phrases) to implement Housing Element Program 2.h—Incentivize Special-Needs Housing. The proposed changes are summarized below:

Section 36.220.030, Table 2-2
Table 2-2 “Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for Residential Zoning Districts” would be amended to add Employee Housing as a permitted-by-right use in the RE (Residential Estate) and RS (Residential Suburban) zoning districts.

Section 36.350.265 (Residential Uses—Employee Housing)
A new Section 36.350.265 (Residential Uses—Employee Housing) would be added to Division 36.350 to read as follows:

36.350.265 Residential Uses‒Employee Housing.

A. Applicability. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5, employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees shall be allowed in all zoning districts in which single-family residences are allowed and shall be deemed a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone.

Employee housing for six or fewer employee shall not be considered a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory, 16 - 18
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

or other term that implies that such employee housing differs from a single-family dwelling.

B. Employee housing for six of fewer employees shall be subject to the same ordinances and standards applicable to a single-family residence except to the extent that any such ordinance of standard is preempted by the Employee Housing Act (California Health and Safety Code Section 17000, et seq.).

C. Employee housing shall be subject to all applicable requirements of the Employee Housing Act (California Health and Safety Code Section 17000, et seq.).”
Section 36.700.020 (Definitions of Specialty Terms and Phrases) Employee Housing will be added to the list of definitions, to read as follows:

Employee Housing. Housing accommodation, or property upon which a housing accommodation is located, that meets the requirements as set forth in Health and Safety Code section 17008.

Employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees shall be deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use designation.

The proposed changes would make the SPMC consistent with California Employee Housing Act. A draft Ordinance that would codify the required changes is attached.

SPMC Division 36.375 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements) Changes are proposed to SPMC Division 36.375 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements to implement Housing Element Program 2.m—Update Inclusionary Housing Regulations.

The code language would be updated to reduce the inclusionary requirement from 20% to 15%, and would only apply to projects with ten (10) or more dwelling units. Specifically, Section 36.375.020 (Applicability) and Section 36.375.050 (Inclusionary Unit Requirement) would be revised to read as follows:

36.375.020 Applicability
This division applies to all residential development of ten (10) or more dwelling units, including residential portions of mixed-use development, and requires affordable housing units in the amount stipulated in SPMC 36.375.050 (Inclusionary Unit Requirement).

Section 36.375.050 (Inclusionary Housing Requirement)
A. Amount required. A minimum of 15 percent of the total number of dwelling units in a residential or mixed-use project, excluding any bonus units added pursuant to State law or SPMC 36.370, shall be developed, offered to, and 16 - 19
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

sold or rented to households of very low, lower, and moderate income, at an affordable housing cost, as follows:

B. Inclusionary rental units.

Rental projects subject to the inclusionary housing requirement shall provide 50 percent of required affordable units as extremely low or very low units and 50 percent as lower income units. In case of an uneven number, one more unit shall be provided as very low.

C. Inclusionary ownership (for sale) subject to the inclusionary housing requirement shall provide affordable units at the moderate income level.

D. Fractional units. In the case that unit calculations result in a fractional number, the applicant shall choose one of the following options:

1. Round up to next unit and provide the unit on site.

2. Pay the fractional amount above the whole number as an in-lieu fee equivalent to the fraction multiplied by the in-lieu fee as established by City Council resolution. All whole number units shall be provided on site or alternatively as allowed in SPMC 36.375.060 (Alternatives to On-Site Provision).

In addition to the foregoing, staff and the City Attorney Office suggest cleanup/ consistency revisions are recommended to SPMC Section 36.375.060 A. and B. for consistency with the increase in the threshold for applicability of the inclusionary requirements from three (3) or more units to ten (10) or more units. The suggested revisions conform the language of Section 36.375.060 A. to provide that rental projects with fewer than 10 units could be subject to in lieu fees if/when adopted by the City Council, and to conform language of Section 36.375.060 B. to reflect that alternate options for compliance are available to projects of 10 or more units, rather than 5 or more as stated in the current ordinance.

The proposed revisions would implement the Housing Element programs. A draft Ordinance that would codify these changes follows is attached.

Environmental Analysis
The proposed General Plan, DTSP, and Zoning Code/Map Amendments constitutes a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As such, a Program Environmental Impact Report (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 16 - 20
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

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 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.

The Draft PEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period between July 24, 2023 and September 6, 2023. A notice regarding the public review period was posted with the Los Angeles County Recorder, published in the South Pasadena Review, and distributed to relevant regulatory agencies.

During the Draft PEIR public review period, the City received 10 comment letters through written correspondence and emails. Following the close of the public review period, the City prepared a Final PEIR, which includes responses to comments received on the environment. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is included in the Final PEIR to ensure the mitigation measures identified in the PEIR are implemented, thereby minimizing identified environmental effects.

A Final PEIR has been prepared for the Project and will need to be certified and adopted in conjunction with approving the Project. A draft resolution is provided as Attachment A to certify and adopt the PEIR including making the required findings, adopting MMRP and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
16 - 21
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

Housing Element Environmental Assessment
In addition to the 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 Housing Element 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 and Final PEIR, and the adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element, the City Council can make the required findings to approve the Project. As such, two draft Resolutions and five draft Ordinances have been prepared and listed under Attachments.

Next Steps
September 27, 2023: City Council concludes the continued public hearings, and once the public hearing is closed, considers
certifying/adopting the PEIR, approving General Plan and DTSP, with first reading of Ordinances rescinding the MSSP, amending Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map
Amendment.

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 Ordinances, the adoption of General Plan and 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. During this time, however, the City will continue efforts to address the Housing Element Table VI-51 issues through an amendment to the Housing Element.
16 - 22
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

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.

On September 18, 2023, the City Council conducted public hearings on the Project, received public comments, and continued the public hearing items to the September 27, 2023 City Council meeting.

Fiscal Impact
Upon adoption of the General Plan, DTSP, and Zoning Code/Map Amendments, staff time would be required to implement the plans and the updated Zoning Code, as directed by the City Council and in response to community needs. Implementation and program follow through costs have been included in the Community Development fiscal year 2023- 2024 budget.

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.

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. Resolution – Certification of Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) a. Exhibit A: CEQA Findings
b. Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) c. Exhibit C: Statement of Overriding Considerations

2. Resolution – Adoption of General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) 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
16 - 23
General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PEIR, Zoning Code/Map Amendments September 27, 2023

3. Ordinance – Rescinding the Mission Street Specific Plan (MSSP)

4. Ordinance – Zoning Code/Map Amendment
a. Exhibit A: Zoning Code Amendment
b. Exhibit B: Updated Zoning Map

5. Ordinance – Density Bonus Ordinance

6. Ordinance – Employee Housing Ordinance

7. Ordinance – Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

8. Final PEIR / Responses to Comments
16 - 24
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution - Certifying PEIR ----
16 - 25

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
16 - 26
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH

PASADENA CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND

ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR

THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, AND

HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT
The City Council of the City of South Pasadena hereby finds, resolves, and determines as follows:

Section 1. The City is updating its General Plan to be, among other things, consistent with and implement the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element that was adopted by the City Council on May 30, 2023. The project also includes adopting a new Downtown Specific Plan (“DTSP”) to replace the existing Mission Street Specific Plan, amendments to the Zoning Code and Zoning Map to increase density in the RM and RH zones, create a Mixed-Use Overlay District and development standards, update the Zoning Map, and implement of several programs identified in the Housing Element (the “Proposed Project” or “Project”).

Section 2. In conjunction with the adoption of the Housing Element on May 30, 2023, the City Council approved an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) pursuant to Government Code Section 65759, which identified seven significant and unavoidable impacts and thirteen impact that could be mitigated to less than significant. The EA was drafted and adopted to environmentally clear not only the Housing Element, but also implementation of the programs identified therein. Therefore, the Housing Element program implementation actions are covered by the previously adopted EA and further environmental review is not required.

Section 3. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; hereafter “CEQA”), the City prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.; hereafter the “CEQA Guidelines”). Although the Housing Element program implementation actions were environmentally cleared by the adopted EA, certain specific implementation actions to be completed in conjunction with the General Plan Update and DTSP adoption were included as part of the Proposed Project in order to allow for a comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts of these concurrent actions.

Section 4. On January 25, 2018, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) to the State Office of Planning and Research and federal, State, regional, and local government agencies and interested parties. The NOP was circulated for a 30 day period to solicit comments regarding the scope of the environmental analysis. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on February 5, 2018, to provide information on the 16 - 27
2 project and receive additional comments on issues to be addressed in the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). Due to delays in the project, and to include considerations related to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation to the City for its 2021-2029 Housing Element, the City issued a recirculated NOP on April 20, 2021, and held a virtual scoping meeting on May 3, 2021.

Section 5. On July 21, 2023 a Notice of Availability (“NOA”) of the Draft PEIR was published. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the Proposed Project’s potential impacts on the environment.

Section 6. The City circulated the Draft PEIR and its appendices for the Proposed Project to the public and other interested parties for a 45-day comment period, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15105, from July 24, 2023, through September 6, 2023. The Planning Commission, on August 8, 2023, and August 21, 2023, considered the Draft PEIR, and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 23-05 recommending that the City Council consider and certify the PEIR, adopt findings of fact, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”).

Section 7. The City received written comments on the Draft PEIR during the public review period, and prepared written responses to all comments received on the Draft PEIR and those responses to comments are incorporated into the Final PEIR. The City received comment letters from four public agencies, and written responses were provided to each of those agencies on September 15, 2023.

Section 8. The City Council held duly noticed public hearings for the Proposed Project on September 18, 2023, and a continued public hearing to September 27, 2023.

The City Council considered the Proposed Project and concluded deliberations on the Proposed Project, and the Final PEIR on September 27, 2023. Evidence, both written and oral, including staff reports, supporting documentation, public comment letters were presented at the hearing.

Section 9. The Final PEIR is comprised of the Draft PEIR and all appendices thereto; the Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft PEIR; the Final PEIR; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; all of which collectively is referred to herein as the “Final PEIR.” The City Council has considered the Project and the Final PEIR, and the evidence, both written and oral, including staff reports, supporting documentation, and public comment letters, presented at the various hearings.

Section 10. The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final PEIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings and in the record of the proceedings. The Final PEIR, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, maps, and other documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the Community Development Department, South Pasadena City Hall, 1424 Mission Street South Pasadena, California 91030. The custodian of records is the City of South Pasadena 16 - 28
3 Community Development Department. Each of these documents is incorporated herein by reference.

Section 11. The City Council finds that agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final PEIR and the Project.

Section 12. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving the Project, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the Final PEIR, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or,
(b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or,
(c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

Section 13. The required findings are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
(a) Environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study/NOP scoping process for the Project as no impact, or less than significant, are described in Exhibit A, Section IV.
(b) Environmental impacts identified in the Final PEIR as less than significant without mitigation are described in Exhibit A, Section V. (c) Environmental impacts identified as less than significant with mitigation imposed in the Final PEIR are described in Exhibit A, Section VI. (d) Environmental impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the Final PEIR are described in Exhibit A, Section VII. (e) Growth inducement and irreversible environmental effects associated with the Project are described in Exhibit A, Section VIII. (f) Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts, and the reason such alternatives are inferior to the Project, are described in Exhibit A, Section IX.
16 - 29
4 Section 14. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the record, including oral and written testimony presented to it for and during public hearings. The City’s independent environmental consultants and City staff reviewed and analyzed the comments received on the Project’s environmental review. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring additional environmental review or re-circulation of the Final PEIR under CEQA because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, nor was any substantial increase in the severity of any previously disclosed environmental impacts identified.

Section 15. The City Council, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, hereby certifies that the Final PEIR 1) reflects the City Council’s independent judgement and analysis; 2) that was presented to, and reviewed and considered by, the City Council; and 3) has been completed in compliance with CEQA.

Section 16. The City Council hereby adopts the “Findings and Facts in Support of Findings” attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 17. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, and adopts each mitigation measure set forth therein, and imposes each mitigation measure as a condition of the Project’s approval.

Section 18. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. The City Council hereby finds that each of the Proposed Project’s benefits, by itself and as cumulative benefits, would justify proceeding with the Project despite the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final PEIR. The Proposed Project benefits are set forth in the attached Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council hereby adopts the attached Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project.

Section 19. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON this 27th day September, 2023. __________________________
Mayor Jon Primuth
16 - 30
5 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________ ________________________
Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk Roxanne Diaz, City Attorney (seal)
I HEREBY CERTIFY the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of South Pasadena, California, at a special meeting held on the 27th day of September 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk
(seal)
Exhibits:

A. Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
B. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
C. Statement of Overriding Considerations
16 - 31

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
16 - 32
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit A: PEIR Findings
----
16 - 33

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
16 - 34
A-1

EXHIBIT A
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
I. Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report (“EIR”) has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that will occur if a project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.

Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.1 Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the City of South Pasadena General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs (Project). These findings are based upon evidence presented in the record of these proceedings, both written and oral, the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Project including all the appendices, the Comments and Responses to Comments on the PEIR for the Project, staff and consultants’ reports presented through the hearing process, and all of their contents.

II. Project Objectives
The proposed General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs seeks to achieve the following key 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.
1 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081; 14 Cal. Regs. §§ 15901, 15163. 16 - 35
A-2

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.

III. Project Description
Pursuant to State law, the City of South Pasadena has an approved General Plan. The South Pasadena General Plan was last updated and adopted by the City in 1998.

Similarly, the City has an approved Specific Plan for a portion of the downtown area.

The Mission Street Specific Plan (MSSP; now expanded to include a segment of Fair Oaks Avenue and referred to as the Downtown Specific Plan) was adopted in 1996.

State law does not require a General Plan to be updated in regularly scheduled intervals, except for the Housing Element, which must be updated every five to eight years.

However, a general plan needs to be updated if it is to reflect community values and priorities as they change over time.

Accordingly, the comprehensive General Plan and DTSP Update is being undertaken by the City at this time to strengthen its commitment to protecting the characteristics that make South Pasadena a desirable place to live; reflect an understanding of current community 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 and DTSP Update each include nine chapters, and each of the chapters features an overriding goal with policies and actions that support the goal. The nine chapters are: Our Natural Community; Our Prosperous Community; Our Well Planned Community; Our Accessible Community; Our Resilient Community; Our Healthy Community; Our Safe Community; Our Active Community; and Our Creative Community. These nine chapters and their content (i.e., goal, policies, actions), reflect the public visioning process. Policies and actions that support each goal also provide guidance for the City’s ongoing operations, daily actions, decision-making activities, 16 - 36
A-3
maintenance activities, regulation enforcement, monitoring, services provision, and other governmental activities.

The Housing Element is one of the State-mandated elements of a General Plan. It identifies the City’s housing conditions, needs, and opportunities and establishes the goals, policies, and actions (programs) that are the foundation of the City’s housing strategy. However, unlike all other General Plan elements, State law requires each municipality to update its housing element on a prescribed schedule (most commonly every eight years). The City’s 2013–2021 Housing Element was in effect through 2021.

Housing needs are determined by HCD, which allocates numerical housing targets to the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), including the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which includes the City. SCAG finalized its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), on March 9, 2021, and has allocated 2,067 DUs to the City of South Pasadena. Additionally, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has recommended the 2021–2029 Housing Element to demonstrate capacity for a surplus of 708 units beyond the RHNA allocation. As discussed in Section 2.0. Environmental Setting and Project Description, the Court Order requires the City to seek repeal of the City’s 45-foot height limit for residential or mixed-use residential projects on sites (i.e., not Citywide) where the base density calls for greater than 50 DUs per acre (DU/acre).

Based on research, community input, State requirements, and HCD feedback, the central strategy of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs preserve existing housing stock and directs calibrated growth to identified growth areas while providing housing opportunities for all. The Housing Element Implementation Programs update balances strategic and targeted potential housing sites adequate to meet the RHNA allocation and recommended surplus with the general pattern of the existing land use plan.

The General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs Project would accommodate a total of 2,775 residential DUs (including the HCD-recommended surplus units) and 430,000 square feet (sf) of non-residential uses, comprised of retail and office development, in addition to both the existing land uses (see Table 2 2 in Section 2.0 of this PEIR). The full buildout of the Project, for purposes of this PEIR, would generate up to an additional 6,882 residents (assuming no residential vacancies) and additional 1,978 jobs in the City through 2040, compared to existing conditions.

It is important to note that the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs would not authorize any specific development project or other form of land use approval, including public facilities or capital facilities expenditures or improvements. New development would continue to be subject to the City’s development review process. The General Plan and DTSP Update serve as a long-term policy guide for decision-making regarding the physical development, resource conservation, and character of the City and establishes a non-residential development capacity for the City. The proposed 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs serve as the policy guide for decision-making regarding residential development and demonstrates how the City intends to comply with State housing legislation and regional (i.e., SCAG) requirements. 16 - 37
A-4
IV. Effects Determined to be No Impact During Scoping Process The General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs represent the culmination of a comprehensive community outreach and involvement process. The Scoping process included a Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was distributed on January 25, 2018, to federal, State, regional, and local government agencies and interested parties for a 30-day public review period to solicit comments and inform agencies and the public of the Project. The City held a scoping meeting for the PEIR on February 5, 2018.

A Recirculated NOP (RNOP) reflecting inclusion of the 2021–2029 Housing Element into the Project was distributed on April 20, 2021. The City held a virtual scoping meeting for the PEIR for the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs on May 3, 2021.

Based on this scoping process, the City determined there would be no impacts related to the following topics due to the inability of the Project to create such impact or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The following effects were determined to not be significant on a program or cumulative basis.

A. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

1. The Project will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use as the Project Site and surrounding area developed urban areas and are not mapped as Farmland, thus there is no impact.

2. The Project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract because there is no agricultural zoning or use in the area and the Project Site is not subject to any Williamson Act contracts, thus there is no impact.

3. The Project will not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, thus there is no impact.

4. Development of the Project will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, thus there is no impact.

5. The Project does not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, that could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest land, thus there is no impact.

6. No cumulative effects are identified for Agricultural and Forestry Resources and the Project was determined to have no impact for this category.

B. MINERAL RESOURCES

1. The Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state, thus there is no impact.
16 - 38
A-5

2. The Project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan, thus there is no impact.

3. No cumulative effects are identified for Mineral Resources and the Project was determined to have no impact for this category.

V. Effects Determined to Be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation for the Project in the PEIR
The Final PEIR found that the Project would have no significant impact or a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation on the environmental topic areas listed below based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Final PEIR.

A. AESTHETICS

1. The Project will not cause an adverse effect on a scenic vista, thus there is no significant impact.

2. The Project will not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway, thus there is no significant impact.

3. The Project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, thus there is no significant impact.

4. Impacts related to Aesthetics will be less than significant related to adverse effects on a scenic vista, scenic highways or light and glare, and not cumulatively considerable.

B. AIR QUALITY

1. The Project will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the SCAQMD AQMP during operations related to CO hotspots and thus there is no impact.

2. The Project will not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, thus there is no significant impact.

3. Impacts related to Air Quality will be less than significant related to local construction emissions, CO hotspots, and odors, and not cumulatively considerable.

C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. The Project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors and thus there is no significant impact.

2. The Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy (in this case the City’s tree preservation ordinance), thus there is no significant impact.

3. The Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other 16 - 39
A-6
approved local, regional or State habitat conservation plan as there are none that apply to the City and thus there is no significant impact.

4. Impacts related to Biological Resources will be less than significant related to wildlife movement, tree preservation policy or habitat conservation plans and not cumulatively considerable.

D. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. The Project will not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, thus there is no significant impact.

2. Impacts related to Cultural Resources will be less than significant related to human remains and therefore not cumulatively considerable.

E. ENERGY

1. The Project will comply with existing energy efficiency standards and improve the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita and per service population (SP) and will not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Project construction or operation, thus there is no significant impact.

2. The Project will not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, thus there is no significant impact.

3. Impacts related to energy will be less than significant during construction and operation of the Project and not cumulatively considerable.

F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. The Project will not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving (i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, (ii) strong seismic ground shaking, (iii) seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction, or (iv) or landslides, thus there is no significant impact.

2. The Project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, thus there is no significant impact.

3. The Project will not be located on a geological unit that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, thus there is no significant impact.

4. The Project will not be located on expansive soil creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property, thus there is no significant impact.

5. The Project will not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater because there will be wastewater service to the entire site; thus there is no impact.

6. Impacts related to Geology and Soils will be less than significant related to seismic and geologic hazards and septic systems, and not cumulatively considerable.
16 - 40
A-7
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

1. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases; thus there is no significant cumulative impact.

H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. The Project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, thus there is no significant impact.

2. The Project has the potential to emit and will involve handling of hazardous materials that are typical for the operation of developments within the City and all such activities would occur in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local requirements and therefore would not create a significant hazard, including any hazard to any schools within one-quarter of a mile of the Project site; thus there is no significant impact.

3. The Project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and will not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area, thus there is no impact.

4. The Project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, thus there is no significant impact.

5. The Project will not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires , thus there is no significant impact.

6. Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials will be less than significant related to the use, storage, handling, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wildland fire hazards, and therefore not cumulatively considerable.

I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. The Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction or operations or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality through compliance with all applicable federal, state and local requirements, thus there is no significant impact.

2. Development of the Project will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin, thus there is no significant impact.

3. Development of the Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; or (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater 16 - 41
A-8
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff through compliance with all applicable federal, state and local requirements, thus there is no significant impact.

4. Development of the Project will not risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, thus there is no significant impact.

5. Development of the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, thus there is no significant impact.

6. Impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality will be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.

J. LAND USE AND PLANNING

2. The Project will not physically divide an established community; thus there is no significant impact.

3. The Project will not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; thus there is no significant impact.

4. Impacts related to Land Use will be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.

K. NOISE

1. The Project will not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels related to operational traffic noise contributions in excess of standards in the local general plan, noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies; thus there is no significant impact.

2. The Project is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, thus there is no impact.

3. Cumulative impacts related to noise and vibration are not cumulatively considerable.

L. POPULATION AND HOUSING

1. Development of the Project would not indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City, thus there is no significant impact.

2. The Project will not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; thus there is no significant impact.

3. Impacts related to Population and Housing will be less than significant related to employment growth and displacement of people and housing, and therefore are not cumulatively considerable.
16 - 42
A-9
M. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

1. Development of the Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: (i) fire protection, (ii) police protection, (iii) schools, (iv) parks, (v) other public facilities, thus there is no significant impact.

2. Development of the Project will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility occur or be accelerated, thus there is no significant impact.

3. The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment, thus there is no significant impact.

4. Impacts related to Public Services and Recreation will be less than significant related to employment growth and displacement of people and housing, and not cumulatively considerable.

N. TRANSPORTATION

1. Operation of the Project will not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy regarding the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; thus there is no impact.

2. The Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15604.3, Subdivision (b), and thus there is no significant impact.

3. The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses and thus there is no impact.

4. The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access during construction or operations and thus there is no significant impact.

5. Cumulative impacts related to Transportation will be less than significant.

O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. The Project will not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effect; thus there is no significant impact.

2. There are sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years, thus there is no significant impact.

3. The Project will not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise 16 - 43
A-10
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, either through construction or operations, and thus there is no significant impact.

4. The Project will comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, thus there is no significant impact.

5. Impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems will be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.

P. WILDFIRE
While the Project site is not within a State-designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), the southwestern portion of the City is within a City designated High Risk Fire Area. For purposes of the EIR analysis, the City-defined High Risk Fire Area is treated the same as a VHFHSZ.

1. The Project will not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and thus there is no significant impact.

2. The Project will not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire and thus there is no significant impact.

3. The Project will not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment and thus there is no significant impact.

4. The Project will not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slow instability, or drainage changes and thus there is no significant impact.

5. Impacts related to Wildfire will be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.

VI. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined in the PEIR to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
A. AIR QUALITY

1. Sensitive Receptors - Toxic Air Contaminants
(a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the Project mitigate impacts to sensitive receptors from toxic air contaminants (TACs) to a less than significant level:

MM AQ-1: The Applicant/Developer for residential land use projects in the City within 500 feet of a major sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) (e.g., warehouses, industrial areas, freeways, and roadways with traffic volumes over 100,000 vehicle per day), as measured from the property line of the project to 16 - 44
A-11
the property line of the source/edge of the nearest travel lane, shall conduct and submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of CEQA and the SCAQMD. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E06), PM10 concentrations exceed 2.5 µg/m3, PM2.5 concentrations exceed 2.5 µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the Applicant/Developer shall be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level (i.e., below ten in one million or a hazard index of

1.0), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, prior to issuance of a grading permit. Measures to reduce risk may include but are not limited to:
 Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones.
 Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized maximum efficiency rating value (MERV) filters (e.g., MERV 12 or better).

If the HRA cannot demonstrate that the acceptable risk level can be achieved, then no residential land uses may be developed within 500 feet of the TAC source.

2. Cumulative Impacts
(a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the Project mitigate impacts related to cumulative TACs to a less than significant level:

MM AQ-1 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Future development may locate TACs near sensitive receptors, specifically, the potential housing and development sites proximate to the SR-110. MM AQ-1 requires the preparation of an HRA if individual future projects that would include sensitive land uses within 500 feet, and, if necessary, the inclusion of design features that reduce the exposure to DPM by future residents to a less than significant level. Thus, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to TACs. With implementation of MM AQ-1, future development would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs. 16 - 45
A-12
B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species
(a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the Project mitigate impacts to nesting birds, bat, and native plants to a less than significant level:

MM BIO-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys in areas with potentially suitable habitat prior to any construction or site preparation activities that would occur during the nesting and breeding season of native bird species (typically March 1 through August 15). The survey area shall include all potential bird nesting areas within 200 feet of any disturbance. The survey shall be conducted no more than three days prior to commencement of activities (i.e., grubbing or grading).

If active nests of bird species protected by the MBTA and/or the California Fish and Game Code (which, together, apply to all native nesting bird species) are present in the impact area or within 200 feet of the impact area, a temporary buffer shall be placed a minimum of 200 feet around the nest site. This temporary buffer may be greater or lesser depending on the bird species and type of disturbance, as determined by the biologist and/or applicable regulatory agency permits.

Clearing and/or construction within the buffer shall be postponed or halted until juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second nesting attempt. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when disturbance activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests will occur.

MM BIO-2: Trimming or removal activities of mature or significant trees will be conducted between October 1 and February 28, outside of the breeding seasons for native bird and bat species. If activities trimming or removal activities must be conducted during the breeding season (March 1 through September 30), qualified biologist shall survey the tree to be impacted to assess the presence or absence of any active bird nest and a qualified bat specialist shall conduct bat surveys within these areas (plus a 100-foot buffer as access allows) to identify potential habitat that could provide daytime and/or nighttime roost sites and any maternity roosts or bat maternity roost. If either are determined to be present, trimming or removal activities will be postponed until after the breeding season has concluded, or until otherwise deemed acceptable by the qualified biologist due to a discontinuation of nesting bird activity or bat roost vacancy.

MM BIO-3: Within six months of the adoption of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update, the City shall develop a list of fire-resistant plant species that excludes exotic plant species with a high or moderate rating on the California Invasive Plant Council’s invasive plant inventory. This fireresistant plant list shall be the basis of any requirements or recommendations to 16 - 46
A-13
residents, businesses, and/or developers of future projects in hillside areas that require fire-resistant construction and landscaping.

MM BIO-4: If the disturbance limits of any future development project are within 500 feet of native vegetation located in the Arroyo Seco drainage corridor, the Applicant/Developer shall have a biological assessment conducted.

A biological assessment shall also be conducted for all future development on or immediately adjacent to vacant, naturally vegetated parcels. All assessments shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall identify all potential sensitive biological resources, analysis shall place emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, sensitive, regionally, and locally unique species, and sensitive habitats. Impact analysis will aid in determining any direct, indirect, and cumulative biological impacts. Analysis shall provide recommendations for focused surveys (if warranted) and/or avoidance or minimization conditions for project implementation. The assessment shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities (including, but not limited to, equipment and materials staging, grubbing, and fence installation).

As a condition of project approval, the City shall require the Applicant/Developer to adhere to all recommendations of the biological assessment such that project-level impacts are not expected to reduce regional populations of plant and wildlife species to below self-sustaining levels. (b) Findings of Fact
Habitat potentially suitable for native plant species is restricted to the undeveloped, naturally vegetated open space areas. Cooper’s hawk and western mastiff bat are special status wildlife species with potential to occur in the large trees that are located throughout the City. Removal, trimming, or other disturbance of occupied trees may result in loss or harm to individuals of these species and may negatively affect the local population. MM BIO-1 and BIO-2 are designed to address potential impacts related to nesting birds and roosting bats by providing pre-construction surveys and establishing procedures if nesting birds or bats cavities are located and sets the timing of tree maintenance activities. MM BIO-1 also memorializes requirements of the MTBA as applicable to the Project. Potential impacts to Cooper’s hawk and western mastiff bat would be less than significant with implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2.

In addition, introduction of invasive plant species by future development near these undeveloped or vacant open space areas could result in the spread of the plant species to native habitats in the undeveloped, naturally vegetated open space areas subsequently displacing potentially suitable or occupied habitat of special status plant and wildlife species. As such MM BIO-3 requires the City to develop a list of fire-resistant plant species that excludes exotic plant species with a high or moderate rating on the California Invasive Plant Council’s invasive plant inventory, and MM BIO-4 requires an applicant to conduct a biological resources assessment and pre-construction surveys to reduce impacts to native species. Potential impacts to special status plant or wildlife species and native vegetation would be less than significant with implementation of MM BIO-3 and MM BIO-4.
16 - 47
A-14

2. Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities
(a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the Project mitigate impacts to native communities and riparian areas to a less than significant level:

MM BIO-4 (see above).

MM BIO-5: If project construction activities of any future development project have the potential to impact (e.g., dredge and fill, demolition, dewatering or other discharge) a channel/drainage that conveys water during rainfall events, at a minimum, or as recommended by the qualified biologist conducting an assessment per MM BIO-4 above (if also applicable), shall conduct a jurisdictional delineation to determine if impacted channel/drainage meets definition of State and federal regulations. If the delineation report, prepared by a qualified biologist, indicates potential regulated drainage(s), subsequent consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies (depending on the agency jurisdiction[s]) and acquisition of permits, if required, prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities (including, but not limited to, equipment and materials staging, grubbing, and fence installation). As a condition of project approval, the City shall require the Applicant/Developer to adhere to all permit conditions.
(b) Findings of Fact
Although the proposed General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element would generally direct future development to areas of existing development and limit development of native open space, there is potential for future development to impact supporting native vegetation communities. As stated above, the Project would implement MM BIO-4. In addition, the Project would require future projects to conduct a delineation and acquire regulatory agency permits as required. Potential impacts to native vegetation communities and riparian areas would be less than significant with implementation of MM BIO-4 and MM BIO-5.

3. State or Federally Protected Wetlands
(a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the Project mitigate impacts to wetlands to a less than significant level:

MM BIO-3 (see above).

MM BIO-5 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
The CWA requires permits for activity involving jurisdictional waters, and prior to any impacts to the resources under the jurisdiction of the USACE, CDFW, or RWQCB, appropriate permits would have to be obtained from these resource agencies. These permits would identify necessary mitigation to reduce disturbance impacts and require 16 - 48
A-15
appropriate replacement habitat to ensure no net loss in biological resource values.

Compliance with the permit requirements would reduce potential impacts to wetlands and riparian communities to a less than significant. As stated above, implementation of MM BIO-3, would avoid impacts related to introduction of invasive plant species installed for the purpose of fire-resistant landscaping into riparian habitats.

Furthermore, implementation of MM BIO-5, which requires the Applicant/Developer of future development projects to conduct a delineation, if recommended by a qualified biologist, and subsequent consultation with and acquisition of permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities, would reduce potential impacts related to wetlands to a less than significant level.

Potential impacts to state or federally protected wetlands would be less than significant with implementation of MM BIO-3 and MM BIO-5.

4. Interference with Nursery Sites
(a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the Project mitigate impacts to nursery sites to a less than significant level:

MM BIO-1 (see above).

MM BIO-2 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Based on the proposed General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs, future development may involve vegetation clearing and tree removal activities that could also result in the direct loss of active bird nests, active bat maternity roosts, or the abandonment of active nests or roosts by adults. As such implementation of BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce adverse impacts to nesting birds and bats to a less than significant level by minimizing or avoiding disturbance through seasonal scheduling and/or pre-construction surveys and avoidance of designated active nesting areas or roosting areas. Potential impacts to nursery sites would be less than significant with implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2.

5. Cumulative Impacts
(a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the Project mitigate cumulative impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level:

MM BIO-1 (see above).

MM BIO-2 (see above).

MM BIO-3 (see above).

MM BIO-4 (see above).
16 - 49
A-16
(b) Findings of Fact
Based on the proposed General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs, future development could contribute to cumulative changes to plants and wildlife habitats in the San Gabriel Valley due to increasing urbanization.

The proposed General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs would mostly direct future development to occur in areas of existing development. With implementation of MMs BIO-1 and BIO-2, which reduce impacts related to the potential presence of special status bird and bat species in developed areas of the City; MM BIO-3, which reduce impacts related to invasive plant species for fire-resistant landscaping; and MM BIO-4, which requires an impact assessment for future development of vacant, naturally vegetated areas, the Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to sensitive plant and wildlife species, riparian habitat, and jurisdictional resources. As such, cumulative impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant with implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-4.

C. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Substantial Adverse Change to Archaeological Resources (a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the Project mitigate impacts to the significance of archeological resources to a less than significant level:

MM CUL-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Applicants for future development projects shall demonstrate to the City Community Development Department that a qualified Archaeologist has been retained by the applicant to attend the pre grading meeting with the construction contractor to establish, based on the site plans, appropriate procedures for monitoring earth-moving activities during construction. The Archaeologist shall determine when monitoring of grading activities is needed. If any archaeological resources are discovered, construction activities must cease within 50 feet of the discovery, or as determined by the Archaeologist, and they shall be protected from further disturbance until the qualified Archaeologist evaluates them using standard archaeological protocols. The Archaeologist must first determine whether an archaeological resource uncovered during construction is a “Tribal Cultural Resources” pursuant to Section 21074 of the California Public Resources Code, or a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Section 21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code or a “historical resource” pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a “Tribal Cultural Resource”, “unique archaeological resource” or a “historical resource”, the Archaeologist shall formulate a Mitigation Plan in consultation with the Applicant and the City Community Development Department that satisfies the requirements of the above-listed Code sections. Upon approval of the Mitigation Plan by the City, the Project shall be implemented in compliance with the Plan.

If the Archaeologist determines that the resource is not a “Tribal Cultural Resource”, “unique archaeological resource” or “historical resource,” s/he shall 16 - 50
A-17
record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). The Archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a testing or mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. The report shall follow guidelines of the California Office of Historic Preservation. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the CHRIS at the SCCIC at the California State University, Fullerton.
(b) Findings of Fact
The results of the 2020 SCCIC records search indicate that one previously recorded prehistoric archaeological site, P-19-003057, has been identified within the City; however, the archaeological site would not be impacted by Project-related activities.

The City is almost completely built out and is highly developed. As many of these sites are likely already disturbed, implementation of the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element is not anticipated to introduce a substantial amount of new development that would impact archaeological resources. Future development is subject to the Public Resources Code, which requires that should potential archaeological resources be found during ground-disturbing activities, a qualified archaeologist must make a significance determination and develop a plan in consultation with the City and developer. Although the Public Resource Code provides a process to manage unanticipated archaeological resources, they are not presented as a single, cohesive requirement. It is possible that the appropriate processes may not be implemented due to lack of awareness. Therefore, MM CUL-1 requires that future development projects retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor excavation activities and salvage any encountered resources as necessary and appropriate. Potential impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant with implementation of MM CUL-1.

2. Tribal Cultural Resources
(a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the Project mitigate impacts to the significance of archeological resources to a less than significant level:

MM CUL-1 (see above).
(b)Findings of Fact
Pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52, the City initiated government-to-government consultation with NAHC-identified California Native American tribes and those tribes that have requested such consultation in order to identify, protect, and/or mitigate potential impacts to cultural places/resources. There was no response from the tribes on the 2018 SB 18/AB 52 consultation letter or within the 2018 NOP review period.

One tribe, the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (Gabrielino Tongva Tribe), responded to the 2021 consultation request. A consultation between the City and the Gabrieleno Tongva Tribe was conducted and the Gabrielino Tongva Tribe indicated that they believe a project applicant has the right to contract with a tribal group of their choosing for the purpose of Native American monitoring and is opposed 16 - 51
A-18
to measures or conditions designating one particular Gabrielino Tribal group for the purpose of Native American monitoring. There were no tribal cultural resources known to the Gabrielino Tongva Tribe apart from the site(s) associated with the NAHC’s Sacred Lands File. When excavating in native (i.e., undisturbed) soils, there is always the potential to encounter unanticipated archaeological resources, which may include Tribal Cultural Resources and/or Native American remains. Implementation of regulations and MM CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources, to less than significant.

3. Cumulative Impacts
(a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the Project mitigate cumulative impacts related to cultural resources to a less than significant level:

MM CUL-1 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Based on the proposed General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs, future Project may contribute to development on vacant and undeveloped lots. Future development and public and infrastructure projects not subject to CEQA could adversely affect in-situ archaeological resources, and cumulative impacts may occur. However, implementation of MM CUL-1 would prevent significant adverse impacts on archaeological resources in the City and thus, would avoid a cumulative contribution to the loss of archaeological resources in the Valley. There would be a less than significant cumulative impact to archaeological resources with implementation of MM CUL-1.

D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Paleontological Resources
(a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the Project mitigate potential construction-related impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level:

MM GEO-1: Should potential paleontological resources be found during ground-disturbing activities for any individual project implemented under the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element, grounddisturbing activity in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be temporarily halted and a qualified paleontologist will be hired to evaluate the resource. If the potential resource is found not to be significant by the paleontologist, construction activity in the area of the find can resume. If the resource is found to be significant, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in consultation with the City and the developer (if present), for further exploration and/or salvage. A Disposition of the Recovered Paleontological Resources and Mitigation Report shall be prepared by the qualified paleontologist and submitted to the City. Any recovered fossils shall be deposited in an accredited 16 - 52
A-19
institution or museum, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
(b) Findings of Fact
The proposed General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs would not directly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature. Future development would largely occur in areas of the City that are already developed and/or built out. However, based on the records search conducted by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles (NHMLA), nine fossil localities have been identified within or near the City. Therefore, grading and construction activities in undeveloped areas, or redevelopment that requires deeper or more extensive soil excavation than in the past, could potentially cause the disturbance of previously unknown paleontological resources. MM GEO-1 is designed to address any such impacts and provides a protocol should any paleontological resources be found. Thus, impacts to paleontological resources during excavation would be potentially significant, however, MM GEO-1 will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

2. Cumulative Impacts
(a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the Project mitigate cumulative impacts related to paleontological resources to a less than significant level:

MM GEO-1 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Based on the proposed General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs, future Project may contribute to development on vacant and undeveloped lots. A project, in conjunction with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects, could potentially result in the disturbance of paleontological resources throughout the region, and implementation of MM GEO1 would prevent significant adverse impacts on paleontological resources in the City and thus, would avoid a cumulative contribution to the loss of paleontological resources in the Valley. There would be a less than significant cumulative impact to paleontological resources with implementation of MM GEO-1. 16 - 53
A-20
E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1.Release of Hazardous Materials
(a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the Project mitigate potential impacts to hazardous materials to a less than significant level:

MM HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Applicants for future development projects shall:
1) Investigate the project site to determine whether it or immediately adjacent areas have a record of hazardous material contamination via the preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, which shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department for review. If the Phase I ESA concludes there are recognized environmental conditions that indicate the potential for on-site contamination, the Applicant shall direct the performance of a subsurface investigation appropriate in scope to the likely contaminants (e.g., water, soil, soil vapor). The results of the investigation shall be submitted to the City.
2) If contamination is identified on the site, the City, in accordance with appropriate regulatory oversight agencies (e.g., California Toxic Substances Control, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board), shall determine the need for further investigation and/or remediation of the site.

If further investigation or remediation is required, it shall be the responsibility of the Applicant(s) to complete such investigation and/or remediation to the satisfaction of the City and the local oversight agency(ies).
3) Closure reports or other reports that document the successful completion of required remediation activities, if any, shall be submitted to and approved by acceptable to the City (as the Certified Uniform Program Agency) and the local oversight agency(ies) prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed site development.

MM HAZ-2: In the event that previously unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater contamination that could present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately and the City shall be notified. If contamination is encountered, the Applicant for the proposed development shall be responsible for preparing and implementing a Risk Management Plan that (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post-development and (2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include, but not be limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post-development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate oversight 16 - 54
A-21
agencies shall be notified. If determined necessary by the oversight agency(ies), a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets California Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area.
(b) Findings of Fact
There may be sites in the City impacted by hazardous materials or hazardous wastes from historic use that are not identified on current databases. Therefore, future development would implement MM HAZ-1, which requires that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) be prepared by and, if warranted, remediation of contaminated conditions and submittal of a closure report or equivalent documentation to the City and the assigned regulatory oversight agencies. In addition, future Project Applicants would be responsible for the preparation of a Risk Management Plan to identify the contaminants of concern and their risks and describes measures to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards.

Thus, impacts related to release of hazardous materials would be potentially significant, however, MMs HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

2. Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the Project mitigate cumulative impacts related to hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 to a less than significant level:

MM HAZ-1 (see above).

MM HAZ-2 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
There are a total of 18 sites in the City identified on the list of leaking LUST sites from the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database, which are compiled as part of the Cortese List, pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. In addition, there are seven SWRCB CPS sites and five DTSC Cleanup Sites, which are not part of the Cortese list.

These findings are typical of urban environments with uses such as gas stations, automotive repair facilities, dry cleaners, medical facilities, and municipal facilities and do not ordinarily represent conditions that are hazardous to the general public. As such, MMs HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 require actions by the Applicant for future development projects to characterize the potential risk associated with historic and/or current land uses on the proposed project site such that the contamination, if any, is addressed prior to construction and occupancy of that project. Thus, impacts related to potential location of a site of the Cortese list would be potentially significant, however, MMs HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 16 - 55
A-22

3. Cumulative Impacts
(a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the Project mitigate cumulative impacts related to creation of health risks and public safety hazards to a less than significant level:

MM HAZ-1 (see above).

MM HAZ-2 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Existing developments within the San Gabriel Valley pose risks to public health and safety, as they relate to the use, storage, handling, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. Future development in the City and in the rest of the San Gabriel Valley would increase these risks as more facilities or operations utilize hazardous materials. However, the proposed Project’s compliance with existing health and safety regulations, and MMs HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, would prevent the creation of cumulative health risks and public safety hazards. Thus, impacts related to creation of health hazards and safety would be potentially significant, however, MMs HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

F. NOISE

1. Interior Operational Noise – Traffic Noise Levels
(a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the Project mitigate interior operational noise to a less than significant level:

MM NOI-2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new multi-family residential or mixed-use development projects within the Downtown Specific Plan and mixed-use overlay areas, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit an acoustical report or other substantial evidence to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, that demonstrates that the interior noise levels in all habitable rooms will satisfy the California Building Code 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard, including identification of reasonable and feasible noise mitigation measures if determined necessary. It is the responsibility of the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, to ensure that any necessary mitigation measures are fully and properly implemented. (b) Findings of Fact
To provide the necessary interior noise level reduction, all future buildings developed with residential units would be required to provide a windows-closed condition and a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning) such that the residents of those buildings can achieve a 45 dBA CNEL environment. With typical building construction 16 - 56
A-23
and a windows-closed condition, a minimum 25 dBA CNEL reduction is achievable for residential dwelling units. However, the minimum 25 dBA CNEL with standard building construction may result in interior noise levels greater than 45 dBA CNEL.

Therefore, MM NOI-2 requires that the Project Applicant/Developer of future multifamily residential or mixed-use development projects in the Downtown Specific Plan and mixed-use overlay areas submit an interior noise analysis, which demonstrates that the interior noise level meets 45 dBA CNEL, to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. With implementation of MM NOI-2, interior operational noise level impacts would be less than significant.

2. Operational Noise - Stationary Source Noise
(a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measure imposed upon the Project mitigate traffic noise levels near future development during operations to a less than significant level:

MM NOI-3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit and/or certificate of occupancy for non-residential and mixed-use development projects, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit an acoustical report or other substantial evidence to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, that demonstrates:
 Exterior noise levels at adjacent property lines will satisfy the South Pasadena Municipal Code Section s19A.7(b), 19A.12, and 19.21(c) exterior noise level limits, and satisfy any conditions of approval. The site-specific acoustical report shall identify the necessary measures, if any, required to reduce exterior noise levels to below the South Pasadena Municipal Code Section 19A.7(b), 19A.12, and 19.21(c) exterior noise level limits, and satisfy any conditions of approval.
 Acoustical isolation between units has been included in the project design for residential dwelling units situated above non-residential uses. (b) Findings of Fact
Future residential land uses would be noise-sensitive receiving land uses and are not expected to include any specific type of stationary noise sources beyond the typical noise sources (e.g., heating, ventilating and air conditioning [HVAC] units) associated with existing residential land use in the City. Project-related stationary source (operational) noise could be generated by the operation of potential commercial/retail and office uses pursuant to the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element. Such noise sources could include HVAC units, loading dock activities, outdoor restaurant dining and music activities, and parking lot vehicle movements. It is noted that these potential noise sources are consistent with type of existing stationary noise sources observed in the City. The proposed Project includes actions to require mixed-use structures to minimize the transmission of noise generated by commercial uses affecting residential uses, minimize stationary noise impacts on sensitive receptors, and require control of noise from construction activities, private developments/residences, landscaping activities, and special events. Therefore, MM NOI-3 requires that the Applicant/Developer of future non-residential and mixed-use 16 - 57
A-24
projects that are near noise-sensitive land uses submit an acoustical report, which demonstrates that exterior noise levels at adjacent noise-sensitive land use property lines satisfy Section 19A.7(b), 19A.12, and 19.21(c) of the SPMC. With implementation of MM NOI-3, on-site operational noise impacts from stationary sources would be less than significant.

3. Groundborne Vibration and Noise (Construction and Operation) (a) Findings
The following Mitigation Measures imposed upon the Project mitigate construction and operation- related groundborne noise and vibration impacts to a less than significant level:

MM NOI-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new development projects within the Downtown Specific Plan and mixed-use overlay areas, the Project Applicant/ Developer shall submit a final acoustical report to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, that demonstrates:
 Exterior construction noise levels at the closest sensitive receiver locations will satisfy the FTA 80 dBA Leq residential and 85 dBA Leq commercial 8-hour construction noise level standards and the County of Los Angeles

0.01 in/sec root-mean-square velocity (RMS) vibration standard. The sitespecific report shall identify the necessary reduction measures, if any, required to reduce exterior noise and vibration levels to below FTA noise and County of Los Angeles vibration thresholds.
 Measures to reduce construction noise and vibration levels, such as but not limited to those provided below, shall be incorporated in the final acoustical report:
o Install temporary construction noise barriers at the project site boundary that break the line of sight for occupied sensitive uses for the duration of construction activities. The noise control barrier(s) must provide a solid face from top to bottom and shall:
 Provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA and be
constructed with an acoustical blanket (e.g., vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts;
 Be properly maintained with any damage promptly repaired.

Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired.
 Install sound dampening mats or blankets to the engine compartments of heavy mobile equipment (e.g., graders, dozers, heavy trucks). The dampening materials must be capable of a 5 dBA minimum noise reduction, must be installed prior to the use of heavy mobile construction equipment, and must remain installed for the duration of the equipment use.  Construction activities requiring pile driving within 400 feet, large bulldozers within 100 feet, loaded trucks within 50 feet, or jackhammers 16 - 58
A-25
within 25 feet of nearby sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, school) shall be minimized, or alternative equipment or methods shall be used, unless the vibration levels are shown to be less than the County of Los Angeles RMS threshold of 0.01 in/sec.

MM NOI-5: The Project Applicant/Developer of any site-specific development in the Downtown Specific Plan and mixed-use overlay areas that is situated within 25 feet of an historic resource shall engage a qualified structural engineer to conduct a pre-construction assessment of the structural integrity of the nearby historic structure(s) and, prior to the issuance of a building permit, submit evidence to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, that the operation of vibration-generating equipment associated with the new development would not result in structural damage to the adjacent historic building(s). If recommended by the pre-construction assessment, ground borne vibration monitoring of nearby historic structures shall be required.

MM NOI-6: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new development projects within 50 feet of the Metro A Line, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit a final vibration study to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, which shall identify and require implementation of reasonable and feasible vibration reduction measures to avoid exceeding the 72 VdB residential and 75 VdB non-residential vibration level standards.
(b) Findings of Fact
Future development projects within the Downtown Specific Plan and mixed-use overlay areas will generate ground-borne construction vibration during building demolition and site excavation/grading activities when heavy construction equipment, such as large bulldozers, pile driving, and loaded trucks will be used. The analysis in the Draft PEIR and the resulting MM NOI-4 is focused on larger projects proposed in the Downtown Specific Plan and mixed-use overlay areas because a significant groundbourne vibration impact is reasonably foreseeable. To ensure the recommended mitigation is applied appropriately, this clarification has been added. The higher existing density of land uses in portions of these areas combined with the more foreseeable likelihood of larger projects from lot consolidation and/or higher intensity development on unchanged lot sizes. These actions are consistent with the General Plan and DTSP Update land use plan to focus more intensive development away from the established lower density residential neighborhoods. The County’s vibration perception threshold of 0.01 in/sec RMS is used to assess the human perception of vibration levels due to Project-related construction activities. Impact pile driving would generate higher vibration levels ranging from 0.010 to 0.640 in/sec PPV, or 0.007 to

0.454 in/sec RMS. Typical construction activities (i.e., non-pile-driving) associated with future development projects would exceed the vibration standard at receiver locations within 25 feet for jackhammers, 50 feet of loaded trucks, and 100 feet of large bulldozers, if used. Pile driving activities would exceed the vibration standard at receiver locations within 400 feet. MM NOI-4 requires that the use of loaded trucks, large bulldozers, pile drivers, and jackhammers at construction sites nearby sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, school) shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible 16 - 59
A-26
unless the vibration levels are shown to be less than the County threshold of 0.01 in/sec RMS.

In addition, vibration levels exceeding standards have the potential to damage fragile historic structures. Similarly, this potential impact is reasonably foreseeable for development projects in the Downtown Specific Plan and mixed-use overlay areas because of the higher existing density of land uses, thereby leading to a reasonable likelihood that development activity is situated within 25 feet of an historic resource.

Therefore, MM NOI-5 requires a pre-construction assessment of possible structural damage for construction activity within 25 feet of a historic building. With implementation of MMs NOI-4 and NOI-5, the construction-related vibration impacts at nearby sensitive receiver locations in the Downtown Specific Plan and mixed-use overlay areas would be reduced to a less than significant level impact during the worstcase construction activities at the site boundary.

Some future residential and non-residential uses within the Downtown Specific Plan and mixed-use overlay areas are anticipated to be located within 50 feet of the Metro A Line railroad tracks and may experience vibration levels greater than 70 VdB, which can exceed the residential 72 VdB and non-residential 75 VdB criteria for frequent rail events. MM NOI-6 requires that the Applicant/Developer of future projects within 50 feet of the A Line submit a Vibration Study, which identifies all reasonable and feasible measures to avoid exceeding a 72 VdB residential and 75 VdB non-residential vibration level, to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. With implementation of MM NOI-6, operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Noise and vibration impacts related to the Metro A Line and construction activity would be limited geographically to the alignment of the A Line within the City of South Pasadena and individual construction sites within the Downtown Specific Plan and mixed-use overlay areas, respectively. Therefore, these noise and vibration sources would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact due to the effects of noise attenuation.

VII. Environmental Impacts Determined to be Significant and Unavoidable in the PEIR
A. AESTHETICS

1. Visual Character
(a) Findings
The Project will substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, thus there is a significant and unavoidable impact. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact, as it is the result of State mandates superseding City planning control or requirements of a court order.
(b) Findings of Fact
Future development pursuant to the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs would change the visual quality of individual development sites, as structures and site improvements are introduced on 16 - 60
A-27
vacant lands and as older developments are replaced with newer structures and site improvements that would likely have a different architectural style and may be more intense than the pre-existing land use. Increased urbanization could be expected as properties are developed and/or redeveloped with higher intensity/density uses.

However, except in cases where local design discretion is superseded by State law, all proposed development would be subject to the City of South Pasadena Residential Design Guidelines and the City of South Pasadena Commercial Design Guidelines, and related design review process. For proposed future developments that may affect a designated or potential historic resource, that project would additionally be subject to the City’s Cultural Heritage Ordinance and related Cultural Heritage Commission review process. Also, the City administers a strict tree protection policy that contributes to the maintenance of the City’s Tree City USA designation and the associated aesthetic and environmental benefits of a substantial tree canopy. Finally, the DTSP Update has an accompanying code (herein referred to as DTSP Code or Code) to guide the DTSP’s implementation. The type of code presented in the DTSP fosters predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form, rather than separation of uses as in traditional zoning codes, as their organizing principle. The prescriptive standards in the Code would ensure that new development projects demonstrate the highest standards of urban design, architecture, streetscaping, and landscaping.

The City is subject to a Court Order that requires the City is to seek, through voter approval by December 31, 2024, the repeal of the City’s 45-foot height limit for residential or mixed-use residential projects on sites (i.e., not Citywide) where the base density calls for greater than 50 DUs/acre). However, the maximum height proposed under the General Plan Update would remain at the limit of 45 feet for most of the City.

The State’s Density Bonus Law, however, provides an avenue for certain housing development projects to exceed the City’s height limit under specific circumstances.

While the Density Bonus Law is the existing regulatory setting as of mid-2022, the combination of proposed policies to increase density in selected areas of the City to meet the RHNA allocation and recommended surplus with the State Density Bonus Law and required ballot measure related to the height limit may result in more structures that exceed the City’s 45-foot height limit than would have otherwise been the case. In summary, the City has focused the potential for new development activity mostly within the discrete focus areas and has determined that these areas are able to appropriately accommodate the increased density and development to benefit the City as a whole, environmentally, economically, and socially. Even with increased density associated with these focus areas and the potential housing development, the Project proposes essentially the same land use patterns as currently exist and defines policies and actions that are intended to guide design decisions. Through adherence to the proposed policies and actions set forth in the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021– 2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs, including the DTSP Code, and through compliance with City regulations and processes, implementation of the Project would apply all feasible means to avoid a substantial degradation of the City’s visual quality and character.

Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that, due to State mandated housing- and land userelated program and regulations and the court-ordered ballot initiative to repeal the height limit on selected sites, the future change in visual character in the City may be considered adverse to some segments of the community. As discussed under Threshold 16 - 61
A-28

3.1a, although there would be an intensification of uses in some areas of the City that some would consider to be transformational, the overriding intent of the Project is to ensure maintenance of the City’s character through high-quality, context-specific design and enhancement of the public realm. To balance preservation of existing uses and land use transitions where development or redevelopment occur, the focus areas and potential housing sites are primarily situated in those portions of the City where change is desired to both diversify land uses and take advantage of proximity to the Metro A Line Station. Although some factors (i.e., RHNA allocations and State legislation) are not in the City’s control, in consideration for the community’s point of view on this issue, the direct and indirect effects of the Project would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact to visual character. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact, as it is the result of State mandates superseding City planning control or requirements of a court order.

2. Cumulative Impacts
(a) Findings
Impacts related to Aesthetics will be significant and unavoidable related to degrading the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, and are considered to incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative impact. (b) Findings of Fact
Land use development within the focus areas would lead to visual changes within the City that would occur in the context of future growth and development in adjacent jurisdictions that would be visible by residents and visitors traveling between South Pasadena and surrounding cities. Redevelopment would be subject to City design guidelines and associated review processes. These requirements are intended to ensure a high level of design quality. However, the future change in visual character in the City may be considered adverse to some segments of the community and this is identified as a direct and indirect significant and unavoidable impact to visual character.

As such, development under the Project would be considered to incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to substantial degradation of visual character of areas surrounding the City of South Pasadena.

B. AIR QUALITY

1. Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
(a) Findings
Buildout of the Project will have the potential to conflict with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD 2020 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) during construction and operation, thus there is a significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impact related to conflict with an applicable air quality management plan.

There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact, because (1) construction-related emissions cannot be accurately determined at a program level and would therefore be speculative; and (2) estimated operational emissions exceed the SCAQMD threshold for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the primary source of which is consumer products and is outside the authority of the City to regulate. 16 - 62
A-29
(b) Findings of Fact
Pursuant to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a project would be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would:
 Create an increase in the frequency or severity of air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, delay attainment of air quality standards; or  Exceed the assumptions of the AQMP.

For the first criterion, construction-source and operational-source emissions have the potential to exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. For the second criterion, buildout of the Project would exceed the 2020– 2045 RTP/SCS population, housing, and employment projections and consequently air emissions that are included in the 2022 AQMP.

2. Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of any Criteria Pollutant for which the Project Region is Non-Attainment.
(a) Findings
SCAQMD’s policy with respect to cumulative impacts associated with the abovereferenced pollutants and their precursors is that impacts that would be directly less than significant on a project level would also be cumulatively less than significant As the Project buildout has the potential to exceed the SCAQMD construction and operational thresholds for regional emissions, the Project may result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is in non-attainment under an applicable air quality standard, thus there is a significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impact. Buildout of the Project will have the potential to conflict with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD 2020 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) during construction and operation, thus there is a significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impact related to conflict with an applicable air quality management plan. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact, because (1) construction-related emissions cannot be accurately determined at a program level and would therefore be speculative; and (2) estimated operational emissions exceed the SCAQMD threshold for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the primary source of which is consumer products and is outside the authority of the City to regulate.
(b) Findings of Fact
Despite inconsistency with the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS growth projections, the proposed Project would support implementation of the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS goals by facilitating infill and mixed-use development and focusing growth along transportation/transit corridors. However, since the additional growth may generate emissions that would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact at the programmatic level of analysis provided in the PEIR.
16 - 63
A-30
C. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Historic Resources
(a) Findings
It cannot be certain that a significant adverse impact to one or more existing or future identified historic resources would not occur with implementation of the Project, thus there is a significant and unavoidable impact related to historic resources. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact, as it is the result of State mandates superseding certain aspects of the City’s planning control for some parcels that include those with existing, or potentially future, eligible or known historic resources. (b) Findings of Fact
The City’s approach to future development has a focus on the preservation and maintenance of historical resources, balanced with required incorporation of housing opportunities. The City’s approach and proposed policies and actions that are protective of historic resources, in combination with the extensive regulatory framework of federal, State, and local regulations governing the treatment of historical resources, in particular the City’s Cultural Heritage Ordinance, would contribute to the protection and maintenance of historical resources within the City.

The City’s established historic preservation policies and procedures, combined with existing State and local preservation laws and regulations, would substantively protect existing and future historical resources and would minimize the potential impact to historic resources to the extent feasible. Sites that are historic or located in a historic district are anticipated to be half as likely to be developed than non-historic sites.

Properties that are historic or are located in a historic district are required to be reviewed by the City’s Cultural Heritage Commission and are required to fulfill certain requirements as described in Section 6.5.2, Governmental Constraints, of the Housing Element.

Nevertheless, for the City to become compliant with State housing element law it was necessary to broaden the pool of suitable sites identified for potential housing development beyond the focus areas to generally encompass more parcels in total.

Also, there are State regulations that allow by-right development via a ministerial action under specific circumstances. The City can specify planning requirements as part of a ministerial action; however, unlike a discretionary action the CEQA process would not be triggered. For the above-listed reasons, it cannot be certain that a significant adverse effect to one or more existing or future identified historic resources would not occur with implementation of the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021– 2029 Housing Element. Therefore, the potential effects of the Project would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources.

1. Cumulative Impacts
(a) Findings
Development under the Project would be considered to incrementally contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to the loss of historical resources in the San Gabriel Valley. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this 16 - 64
A-31
impact, as it is the result of State mandates superseding certain aspects of the City’s planning control for some parcels that include those with existing, or potentially future, eligible or known historic resources.
(b) Findings of Fact
Development pursuant to the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs have the potential to disturb or destroy historical resources associated with the City’s history and local culture. Historic structures that may be altered or demolished in and near the City would affect the cultural significance of an individual site or the structure, as well as incrementally diminish the City’s historical context. Similarly, growth and development in the San Gabriel Valley may involve demolition of older structures that may be important to the valley’s history.

Demolition or alterations that do not follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards would lead to the cumulative loss of historic resources in the San Gabriel Valley.

Implementation of historic preservation ordinances by individual cities would preserve sites and structures of local importance. Compliance with the City’s Cultural Heritage Ordinance and City policies and actions pertaining to the preservation of historic resources by the City of South Pasadena would prevent significant adverse impacts on historical resources in the City to the extent practicable. However, as discussed above, it cannot be certain that a significant adverse effect to one or more existing or future identified historic resources would not occur with implementation of the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element and this is identified as a direct significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources.

D. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(a) Findings
Analysis of a Project’s GHG impacts is inherently a cumulative impacts analysis because climate change is a global problem. As the Project identifies future land uses and does not contain specific development proposals, construction-related emissions are speculative and cannot be determined. As such, GHG emissions related to construction are assumed to be significant and unavoidable. Estimated annual operational emissions associated with buildout of the Project were quantified and were concluded to exceed guidance thresholds, and there is a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact, because (1) construction-related emissions cannot be accurately determined at a program level and would therefore be speculative, (2) the emissions of individual future projects contributing to the City’s annual GHG emissions is also speculative, and (3) the measures necessary and/or appropriate to reduce GHG emissions for individual projects cannot be defined at the program level.
(b) Findings of Fact
Construction-related GHG emissions are speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this stage of the planning process and are therefore assumed to be significant and unavoidable. The estimated GHG emissions associated with the operational activities of the proposed Project were modeled assuming development of 16 - 65
A-32
246 single-family dwelling units (DUs), 2,232 multi-family DUs, 297 ADUs, 130,000 square feet of retail, and 430,000 square feet of commercial. It is noted that this is not meant to reflect the precise distribution of land uses that would or should eventually be developed but is a representation of a reasonably foreseeable buildout scenario for purposes of modeling GHG emissions at the program level. The real-life distribution of land uses that would generate GHG emissions will vary. The estimated annual GHG emissions were compared to both the SCAQMD Working Group threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr and a service population efficiency threshold. The estimated emissions exceeded both guidance thresholds.

It is noted that the calculation of operational GHG emissions is very conservative for the following reasons: (1) The CalEEMod model assumes all vehicles are gasoline or diesel fueled; there is no credit for reduced GHG emissions from electric and hybrid vehicles; (2) No credit was taken for the solar generation of electricity that would be included in future development projects as required by Title 24 or Project implementation; (3) No credit was taken for the increased energy efficiency of allelectric homes and businesses, which would be encouraged, if not required, by the General Plan Update and CAP implementation. The Applicant/Developer of future development projects may demonstrate that the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s CAP. If consistency is demonstrated, the Project would have a less than significant GHG emissions impact. Nevertheless, for the Project, operational GHG emissions are considered significant and unavoidable.

E. NOISE

1. Construction Noise
(a) Findings
The Project has the potential to exceed the applicable standards established for substantial temporary ambient noise generation after the following Mitigation Measures are imposed upon the Project during pile driving activity and thus there is a significant and unavoidable impact:

MM NOI-4 (see VI.F.3 above).

MM NOI-7: The Project Applicant/Developer for new development shall be responsible for ensuring that following requirements are implemented by the contractor throughout the construction period. Construction contractors shall be required to implement the following measures to reduce noise levels from construction activity:
 equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards, and all stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise-sensitive use nearest the construction activity;  locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receiver nearest to the construction activity; and
16 - 66
A-33
 limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment by Section 19A.13(a) of the South Pasadena Municipal Code.

The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses to delivery truck noise.

There are no additional feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact related to pile-driving activity because it is possible this activity may be required and occur within 200 feet of a sensitive receptor location over the course of the Project’s implementation. (b) Findings of Fact
MMs NOI-4 and NOI-7 prescribe several means to reduce noise level from both typical construction activity and pile driving activity during future development. However, even with application of the construction noise reduction measures, it is anticipated the pile driving noise levels at nearby receiver locations could exceed the FTA construction noise level thresholds.

1. On-Site Exterior Transportation Noise
(a) Findings
The Project has the potential to exceed the applicable standards established for substantial permanent ambient noise generation at future projects in the focus areas based on 2040 traffic levels after the following Mitigation Measure is imposed upon the Project and thus there is a significant and unavoidable impact:

MM NOI-1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new multi-family residential or mixed-use development projects within the Downtown Specific Plan and mixed-use overlay areas, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit an acoustical report or other substantial evidence to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, that demonstrates that the project will satisfy the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard, including identification of reasonable and feasible noise mitigation measures if determined necessary. It is the responsibility of the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, to ensure that any necessary mitigation measures are fully and properly implemented.

There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact, because (1) construction-related emissions cannot be accurately determined at a program level and would therefore be speculative; and (2) estimated operational emissions exceed the SCAQMD threshold for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the primary source of which is consumer products and is outside the authority of the City to regulate. (b) Findings of Fact
Projects with residential components located in the Downtown Specific Plan and mixed-use overlay areas would experience future exterior noise levels greater than the normally acceptable compatibility criteria identified in the City’s existing General Plan Safety and Noise Element after implementation of MM NOI-1. Based on this and the proximity of future noise- sensitive land uses to SR-110 and the Metro A Line, the onsite transportation-related noise impacts at future uses within the five focus areas 16 - 67
A-34
defined would be expected to exceed 65 dBA CNEL, which would be a significant impact. MM NOI-1 requires preparation of an acoustical report and identification of reasonable and feasible measures to achieve a 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level. Also, the proposed Project includes actions to use the Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix to evaluate land use decisions and to require development projects to implement mitigation measures, where necessary, to reduce exterior and interior noise levels to meet standards. While it may be possible to satisfy the exterior noise standards for some projects, the transportation noise levels may still exceed the exterior 65 dBA CNEL standard for some projects. Therefore, the exterior on-site transportation noise impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

1. Cumulative Impacts
(a) Findings
Future development in the City and the surrounding area would add new mobile and stationary noise sources, resulting in increased noise levels. The analysis of buildout includes cumulative traffic volumes in the region by 2040. Thus, noise impacts associated with the Project account for cumulative noise impacts. Accordingly, the (1) potential to exceed the applicable standards established for substantial temporary ambient noise generation with Mitigation Measures during pile driving activity and (2) exceedance of the 65 dBA CNEL standard at future development in the focus areas with year 2040 traffic with Mitigation Measures would also be considered a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
(b) Findings of Fact
See VII.E.2(a) and (b) above.

F. POPULATION AND HOUSING

1. Population Growth
(a) Findings
The Project will induce a direct substantial unplanned population growth within the City due to the inconsistency between SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS and 2020–2045 RHNA, thus there is a significant and unavoidable impact. There are no feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce this impact, because any such mitigation would reduce the potential housing stock to be constructed and thereby risk placing the City in violation of State law and susceptible to a variety of penalties, including monetary fines.
(b) Findings of Fact
The number of households, residents, and jobs in the City at buildout of the Project would exceed SCAG’s regional projections derived from the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS.

SCAG’s projections in the RTP/SCS are based in part on coordination between the City and SCAG during preparation of the RTP/SCS and reflects the anticipated growth in the City prior to release of the unexpectedly high 6th Cycle RHNA. While preparation of the 6th Cycle RHNA partially overlapped preparation of the RTP/SCS, the 6th Cycle RHNA preparation continued beyond its adoption and was approved by HCD almost 16 - 68
A-35
seven months later on March 22, 2021. Therefore, the SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS projections are internally inconsistent with the SCAG 6th Cycle RHNA.

SB 375 promotes consistency between RTP’s and regional housing policy. It requires the RTP to plan for the RHNA, and the RHNA to be consistent with the RTP’s projected development pattern. SB 375 also aligned the RHNA with the regional transportation planning process and created an eight-year planning period for cities within MPOs. Allocation of housing share to various cities and counties must be consistent with the SCS. Nonetheless, the necessity of the RHNA to meet the very considerable, recent changes in housing policy at the State level and other processes have resulted in this inconsistency. At the time of preparation of these SCAG documents, and this PEIR, the legislative and planning environment for providing housing and preferable land use patterns to meet GHG reduction and air quality goals is undergoing a marked transformation. The City is required to demonstrate it can accommodate the RHNA allocation. At the same time, accommodating this RHNA allocation results in a substantial unplanned population growth. Therefore, buildout of the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to population growth.

1. Cumulative Impacts
(a) Findings
The Project’s population growth within the City is also considered to incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative impact. There are no feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce this impact, because any such mitigation would reduce the potential housing stock to be constructed and thereby risk placing the City in violation of State law and susceptible to a variety of penalties, including monetary fines. (b) Findings of Fact
The cumulative impacts related to demographic growth are analyzed within the County of Los Angeles, because County-wide demographic data are available from SCAG, DOF, and EDD. Also, because of the interconnectedness of cities and unincorporated areas in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, due to roadways, increasing transit, and other sociological factors, demographic growth in smaller sized cities like South Pasadena cannot be treated like an isolated phenomenon as it is part of the fabric of the region.

Increases in the population, housing, and employment base of the County are expected over time due to in-migration and birth. Future growth and development in the City of South Pasadena and in the County would lead to the development of new homes, the creation of new jobs, and the increase in the resident population of the City and the rest of the region. As discussed above, because of the inconsistency between SCAG’s RTP/SCS and 6th Cycle RHNA, the increase in population and housing is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. This is more of a technicality due to timing and rapid changes in housing policy. However, a direct cumulative adverse impact would not be expected if there is housing that can adequately accommodate the population and there are goods and services available to meet residents’ needs. The cumulative increase in population in the County would be accompanied by an increase in housing stock as projected by SCAG. This balance is partially driven by economic and other 16 - 69
A-36
market forces out of the control of any single municipality. Whether this housing is adequate would depend on the rate of housing development and the success of housing programs in the various cities and communities in the region.

VIII. Irreversible Environmental Changes, Growth Inducement, and Other CEQA Considerations
Section 5.0 of the Final PEIR describes irreversible environmental changes, growthinducing impacts, and other CEQA considerations.

A. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Over the long term, potential future development would require the commitment and reduction of nonrenewable and slowly renewable resources, including petroleum fuels and natural and lumber, sand/gravel, steel, copper, lead, and other metals. Other resources that are slow to renew and/or recover from environmental stressors would also be impacted by long-term implementation of the Project (e.g., air quality through the combustion of fossil fuels and production of greenhouse gases, and water supply through the increased potable water demands for drinking, cooking, cleaning, landscaping, and general maintenance needs).

Future construction activities would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil), natural gas, and gasoline for automobiles and construction equipment. However, the Project would not be creating a need for jobs or housing, and the proposed growth would fulfill an existing and anticipated future need that is based on estimates of local and regional population growth. Therefore, the non-renewable resources used in construction of future development projects would be expected to be consumed by housing and employment-generating land uses. Additionally, the land uses proposed are not unusually wasteful or excessive in terms of construction materials and fossil fuel use.

Implementation of the Project would result in the continuation of long-term resource commitments to potential future development, including energy resources such as electricity and natural gas, petroleum-based fuels required for vehicle trips, and water.

Any future development would occur in accordance with the applicable regulations such as the California Building Code. Most of the future growth would consist of infill development and redevelopment, in proximity to transit (light rail or bus) and/or walking distance to retail and services to reduce VMT. Because the future growth in the City would be on or near sites of existing development and would provide a portion of the needed housing stock in the region, the Project would not be considered wasteful or inefficient in its use of fossil fuels, including energy resources. Additionally, most future uses would not require large scale landscaping and would be required to meet water efficiency regulations.

Overall, potential future development associated with the Project would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, which would limit the availability of these particular resource quantities for future generations or for other uses through the year 2040. However, the use of such resources is anticipated and accounted for in the State, regional, and local regulations, and the proposed Project is entirely consistent with the goals adopted in the 2020–2045 16 - 70
A-37
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, which is intended to reduce VMT, contribute to improved air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions, among other objectives. Therefore, although irreversible changes would result from implementation of the Project, such changes would not be considered significant, and no mitigation is required.

B. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that growth-inducing impacts of a project be considered in a Draft (P)EIR. Growth-inducing impacts are characteristics of a project that could directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth can be induced in several ways, such as through the elimination of obstacles to growth, through the stimulation of economic activity within the region, and/or through the establishment of policies or other precedents that directly or indirectly encourage additional growth. Although growth inducement itself is not considered an environmental impact, it could potentially lead to environmental effects.

Accordingly, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. Removal of an obstacle to growth (e.g., construction or extension of major infrastructure, providing new access to an area);

2. Foster population growth (e.g., construction of additional housing), either directly or indirectly;

3. Foster economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment (e.g., changes in revenue base, employment expansion);

4. Establish a precedent-setting action that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment (e.g., an innovation, a change in zoning, general plan amendment); and/or

5. Development of or encroachment on an isolated or adjacent area of open space (being distinct from an in-fill project).

Since the City of South Pasadena is largely built out, the roadway and utility infrastructure systems are in place. Improvements to roads and other infrastructure would be implemented either to alleviate existing issues or in support of anticipated future growth. Extension of water and sewer lines (i.e., laterals), if needed, would be part of individual future projects and provide services to those developments. However, extensions or replacements of wet utilities (water and sewer infrastructure), dry utilities (i.e., electric, natural gas, telecommunications), or roadway improvements that would serve only the existing and proposed uses and would not serve other nearby areas may be an inducement to further (i.e., unplanned) development either within or near the City.

In addition, the Project would induce population growth within the City and create additional housing. The population, households, and employment estimated for buildout of the Project would exceed Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2040 projections by 18.8 percent, 19.2 percent, and 30.8 percent, respectively, 16 - 71
A-38
and would be considered an inducement of substantial population growth. Regarding employment, buildout of the Project would reduce the City’s existing jobs-housing balance from 1.23 to 1.13, and consideration of jobs-housing balance indicates the increase in employment would not be considered a substantial inducement of growth, as the jobs-housing ratio would be only slightly decreased (i.e., more housing-rich than the existing conditions). There would be a less than significant impact related to employment growth, and no mitigation is required.

Implementation of the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs Project, which is, by definition, growth-inducing regardless of the significance finding for the Project in Section 3.12, would result in significant environmental impacts after mitigation, as throughout the PEIR. This is considered a significant and unavoidable growth-inducing impact.

Except as specifically referenced, the South Pasadena Municipal Code requirements in place for the Mission Street Specific Plan prior to the adoption of the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs would be replaced by the Code’s requirements for the DTSP area. If the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element documents are adopted, the City will subsequently need to review and update, as needed, its Zoning Code to make sure it is consistent with the land use policies in the General Plan Update. The environmental impacts of the update to the Zoning Code consistent with State law (Section 65860 of the Government Code) to ensure consistency with the adopted General Plan, are encompassed in the environmental analysis of the General Plan Update in the PEIR.

Similar to the discussion of growth inducement above, adoption of a General Plan, Specific Plan, and/or Housing Element and an update to the Zoning Code are, by definition, precedent setting actions, as these documents/codes set the path for future development in the City and would result in significant environmental impacts after mitigation, as presented in Sections 3.1 through 3.16 of the Draft PEIR. This is considered a significant and unavoidable growth-inducing impact.

IX. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The PEIR in Section 4.0 considered two alternatives to the Project including Alternative 1-No Project/Existing General Plan and Alternative 2-Reduced Development Capacity. The two alternatives analyzed in the PEIR are discussed below, including the basis for rejecting each alternative. In addition, other alternatives were considered and rejected as infeasible as described in Section 4.1.4 of the PEIR.

A. ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO PROJECT/EXISING GENERAL PLAN

1. Summary of Alternative
The proposed Project is the revision of an existing land use plan, accordingly, pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A) and the State CEQA Guidelines, this No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative considers the comparative environmental impacts of the continued implementation of the existing General Plan, based on the existing conditions in and around January 2018 through the planning horizon of the Project (2040).
16 - 72
A-39
This alternative assumes the 1998 General Plan and 2014–2021 Housing Element would remain as the adopted long range planning policy document for the City of South Pasadena, with future development occurring pursuant to the City’s General Plan goals and policies and Land Use Map in effect currently, and prior to the General Plan and DTSP updates, and related Housing Element Implementation Programs. As discussed above, the 2021–2029 Housing Element has been adopted. However, continuation of the existing (1998) General Plan is allowable. Further, as discussed above, the State CEQA Guidelines require a “no project” alternative be addressed. Therefore, as a purely hypothetical exercise, this Alternative 1 has been given detailed consideration solely for purposes of comparing and contrasting the environmental impacts of the Project, as proposed, with the reduced development scale of Alternative 1, which represents continuation of the current General Plan/Mission Street Specific Plan and reflects the 2014–2021 Housing Element, as the necessary zoning code updates have not been adopted.

Buildout under this alternative is estimated at 265 DUs in the City over the next approximately 20 years (through 2040), or approximately 10 percent of the Project’s residential units. This development would generate approximately 657 residents (assuming no residential vacancy) and 304 jobs. While this Alternative does not reflect the five focus areas of the Project, based on current and recent land use patterns, this Alternative assumes that the most of this development would occur along Fair Oaks Avenue, Mission Street, within the Ostrich Farm, and more sparsely along other major arterials. Because this alternative assumes continuation of the existing General Plan, including 2014-2021 Housing Element, and MSSP, the policies and actions of the Project documents and the DTSP’s development code are assumed not to be implemented under Alternative 1.

2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
A comparison between impacts identified in the Project and Alternative 1 is detailed in Section 4.1.3 and summarized in Table 4-4 of the PEIR, and summarized below.

Alternative 1 would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact related to visual character. However, the City must adopt a 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs by September 27, 2023, or be in violation of State law and the requirements of the Court Order.

Alternative 1 would reduce criteria pollutant emissions and GHG emissions; however, the reduction would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with AQMP consistency, criteria air pollutant emissions, or GHG emissions. Exterior traffic noise levels would be reduced but a significant and unavoidable impact would remain, because this is a result of existing conditions and not buildout of the Project.

This Alternative would expose fewer receptors to construction noise that may exceed the standard, but the potential impact on exposed receptors would remain significant and unavoidable. Alternative 1 would result in a new significant and unavoidable impact related to land use and planning as the number of dwelling units would be far below the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation for the City, which would violate State law, opening the City to penalties; and the Court Order to which the City is now subject, opening the City to Court-ordered sanctions.
16 - 73
A-40
For all other topics, impacts would be similar or reduced compared to the proposed Project. Although a lower level of development capacity may be preferable to some, this increment of reduction would not fully alleviate the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project, by eliminating two impacts (aesthetics and population and housing) and adding one (land use and planning). From an environmental standpoint, perhaps most importantly, this alternative would not be as consistent with regional (SCAG) and State planning programs and policies related to reducing GHG emissions.

Project Objectives
Alternative 1 would not meet objective 1 to provide sufficient and inclusive housing capacity to meet State mandates. This alternative would be in violation of State law and would open the City to penalties.

Alternative 1 would meet 6 of the 10 Project objectives, as the objectives are more closely aligned with providing a high-quality environment rather than a certain amount of development. Specifically, objectives 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10 can be attained through policy implementation by the City unrelated to the location or extent of development.

Similarly, objective 4 would be met because Alternative 1 would still direct growth primarily towards the downtown and Ostrich Farm areas, which is also a policy decision.

Alternative 1 would partially meet objectives 3, 6, and 8. For objective 3, while there would be increased employment compared to the existing conditions. it would be well below that envisioned for the Project. The Project’s goal is to support a more diversified economy and tax base; the likelihood of high-value, high-wage jobs in the creative sector being among the approximately 304 jobs associated with this Alternative is reduced compared to the Project. For objective 6, the reduced amount of development or redevelopment would lead to reduced opportunities for providing pedestrianoriented mixed-use development and enhancement of public spaces compared to the Project. For objective 8, the reduced development capacity would reduce the individual, institutional, and business capacity to adapt to and recover from economic or environmental events.

Conclusion
Overall, the City must adopt a 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs by September 27, 2023, or be in violation of State law and the requirements of the Court Order. As such, Alternative 1 is an overall inferior alternative that is hereby rejected.

B. ALTERNATIVE 2 – REDUCED DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY

1. Summary of Alternative
During preparation of the PEIR for the General Plan and DTSP Update, the City chose to combine the proposed housing element update into the proposed Project. Prior to incorporation of the Housing Element into this PEIR, the “Project” considered development of 589 DUs and 430,000 sf non-residential development. Similar to Alternative 1, as a hypothetical exercise to provide a the public and agencies with a comparative analysis of environmental impacts without full implementation of the 6th 16 - 74
A-41
Cycle RHNA allocation and HCD-recommended surplus, this alternative presents the environmental analysis reflecting the above-described growth in condensed form as an alternative to the Project.

Therefore, Alternative 2 assumes a net increase in development capacity of 589 DUs (or approximately 21 percent of the Project’s residential units) and 430,000 sf of nonresidential (commercial/office) building area, same as the Project. As shown below in Table 4-2, Alternative 2 Development Capacity (2040), of the Draft PEIR the total 500 DUs previously proposed and all of the net increase of 430,000 sf of non-residential uses would be permitted in the five focus areas, and 89 DUs in lots outside the focus areas, through the Project horizon year of 2040. Additionally, Alternative 2 assumes that proposed policies and goals and the DTSP’s code would be implemented.

2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
A comparison between impacts identified in the Project and Alternative 2 is detailed Section 4.3 and summarized in Table 4-4 of the PEIR, and summarized below.

Alternative 2 would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact related to visual character. However, the City must adopt a 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs by September 27, 2023, or be in violation of State law and the requirements of the Court Order.

Alternative 2 would reduce criteria pollutant emissions and GHG emissions; however, the reduction would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with AQMP consistency, criteria air pollutant emissions, or GHG emissions. Exterior traffic noise levels would be reduced but a significant and unavoidable impact would remain, because this is a result of existing conditions and not buildout of the Project.

This Alternative would expose fewer receptors to construction noise that may exceed the standard, but the potential impact on exposed receptors would remain significant and unavoidable. However, Alternative 2 would result in a new significant and unavoidable impact related to land use and planning as the number of dwelling units would be far below the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation for the City, which would violate State law and the Court Order to which the City is now subject.

For all other topics, impacts would be similar or reduced compared to the proposed Project. Although a lower level of development capacity may be preferable to some, this increment of reduction would not fully alleviate the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project, by eliminating two impacts (aesthetics and population and housing) and adding one (land use and planning). From an environmental standpoint, perhaps most importantly, this alternative would not be as consistent with regional (SCAG) and State planning programs and policies related to reducing GHG emissions.

Project Objectives
Alternative 2 would not meet objective 1 to provide sufficient and inclusive housing capacity to meet State mandates. This alternative would be in violation of State law, opening the City to penalties; and the Court Order to which the City is now subject, opening the City to Court-ordered sanctions.
16 - 75
A-42
Alternative 2 would meet 6 of the 10 Project objectives, as the objectives are more closely aligned with providing a high-quality environment rather than a certain amount of development. Specifically, objectives 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10 can be attained through policy implementation by the City unrelated to the location or extent of development.

Similarly, objective 4 would be met because Alternative 2 would still direct growth primarily towards the Downtown and Ostrich Farm areas, which is also a policy decision. Finally, objective 3 would be met because Alternative 2 would provide the same amount of non-residential development, and therefore employment, as the Project.

Alternative 2 would partially meet objectives 6 and 8. For objective 6, the reduced amount of development or redevelopment would lead to reduced opportunities for providing pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development and enhancement of public spaces compared to the Project. For objective 8, the reduced development capacity would reduce the individual, institutional, and business capacity to adapt to and recover from economic or environmental events.

Conclusion
Overall, the City must adopt a 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs by September 27, 2023, or be in violation of State law and the requirements of the Court Order. As such, Alternative 2 is an overall inferior alternative that is hereby rejected.

C. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
As detailed discussion of the Environmentally Superior Alternative is included in Section 4.4 of the PEIR.

CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that, if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Table 4-4, Comparison of Impacts for Project Alternatives, beginning on the following page, provides a summary comparison of impacts resulting from both alternatives to the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs.

As shown in Table 4-4 in Section 4.0 of the Draft PEIR, both alternatives would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (visual quality) and population because of the reduced residential development proposed in Alternatives 1 and 2. The latter impact resulting from the inconsistency between SCAG’s growth projections prepared as part of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and SCAG’s 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. However, because of the reduced residential development, both Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in a new significant and unavoidable impact related to land use and planning. Specifically, these alternatives would not accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation and therefore would be in violation of State law as well as the Court Order to which the City is now subject. For all other topics, both Alternatives final impact finding is the same although the degree of impact varies compared to the Project. For instance, both alternatives would have a reduced impacts to public services as there would be less additional land use development; however, 16 - 76
A-43
under Alternative 1 this comparative reduction would be greater than under Alternative 2 as it proposes the least amount of both residential and non-residential development.

From an environmental standpoint, perhaps most importantly, Alternative 2 would be more consistent with regional (SCAG) planning programs and policies related to reducing GHG emissions pursuant to SB 375 and other State legislation.

Alternatives 1 and 2 would have the same consistency with most Project objectives.

However, Alternative 2 would fully meet one additional objective (3) compared to Alternative 1. Objective 3 would be met because Alternative 2 would provide the same amount of non-residential development, and therefore employment, as the Project.

Therefore, Alternative 2 is concluded to be the environmentally superior alternative because of its greater amount of development capacity compared to Alternative 1, which results in greater consistency with both the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation, Court Order, and regional plans to reduce GHG emissions. Additionally, Alternative 2 more closely meets the Project objectives.
16 - 77

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
16 - 78
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit B: PEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) ----
16 - 79

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
16 - 80

Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update &
2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs
City of South Pasadena
SCH No. 2018011050
Prepared for City of South Pasadena
Community Development Department
1414 Mission Street
South Pasadena, California 91030

Prepared by Psomas
225 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1000
Pasadena, California 91101
September 2023
16 - 81
16 - 82
City of South Pasadena
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update &
2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\MMRP\South Pas GPU_DTSP_HE_MMRP-091523.docx i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Section 1.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................. 1 TABLES
Table Page
1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................................... 2 16 - 83
City of South Pasadena
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update &
2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\MMRP\South Pas GPU_DTSP_HE_MMRP-091523.docx 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 1.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Section 21081.6 of CEQA and Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that, when adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), the Lead Agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes that it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects.

This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), describes the mitigation program to be implemented by the City of South Pasadena (City) as the Lead Agency, during construction of future projects pursuant to the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs. Specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements that will be enforced during Project implementation shall be adopted simultaneously with final Project approval by the responsible decision-making body for the City, the South Pasadena City Council.

The MMRP for the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element, presented in Table 1, consists of Mitigation Measures (MMs), identified in the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) that are required to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects associated with Project implementation to the maximum extent feasible.

The MMs for the Project are listed in the first column in Table 1, with the timeframe for implementation in the second column, the agency or party with primary responsibility for implementation in the third column, and the agency or party with responsibility for monitoring compliance in the last column. The City of South Pasadena will confirm that all MMs are included in the conditions of approval and/or contractor specifications and bid documents, as appropriate, and verified by the City as part of MMRP implementation, consistent with Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
16 - 84
City of South Pasadena
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update &
2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\MMRP\South Pas GPU_DTSP_HE_MMRP-091523.docx 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing
Implementation
Party
Responsible
Party
Air Quality MM AQ-1: The Applicant/Developer for residential land use projects in the City within 500 feet of a major sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) (e.g., warehouses, industrial areas, freeways, and roadways with traffic volumes over 100,000 vehicle per day), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the source/edge of the nearest travel lane, shall conduct and submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of CEQA and the SCAQMD. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), PM10 concentrations exceed 2.5 µg/m3, PM2.5 concentrations exceed 2.5 µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the Applicant/Developer shall be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level (i.e., below ten in one million or a hazard index of 1.0), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, prior to issuance of a grading permit. Measures to reduce risk may include but are not limited to:
 Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones.  Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized maximum efficiency rating value (MERV) filters (e.g., MERV 12 or better).

If the HRA cannot demonstrate that the acceptable risk level can be achieved, then no residential land uses may be developed within 500 feet of the TAC source.

Prior to issuance of a building permit
Applicant/Developer South
Pasadena Community Development Department
Biological Resources MM BIO-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys in areas with potentially suitable habitat prior to any construction or site preparation activities that would occur during the nesting and breeding season of native bird species (typically March 1 through August 15). The survey area shall include all potential bird nesting areas within 200 feet of any disturbance. The survey shall be conducted no more than three days prior to commencement of activities (i.e., grubbing or grading). If active nests of bird species protected by the MBTA and/or the California Fish and Game Code (which, together, apply to all native nesting bird species) are present in the impact area or within 200 feet of the impact area, a temporary buffer shall be placed a minimum of 200 feet around the nest site. This temporary buffer may be greater or lesser depending on the bird species and type of disturbance, as determined by the biologist and/or applicable regulatory agency permits. Clearing and/or construction within the buffer shall be postponed or halted until juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second nesting attempt. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when disturbance activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests will occur.

Within 3 days of any construction activity and During construction (depending on findings of preconstruction surveys) Applicant/Developer (Private Projects) or South Pasadena (Public Projects) South Pasadena Community Development Department
16 - 85
City of South Pasadena
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update &
2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\MMRP\South Pas GPU_DTSP_HE_MMRP-091523.docx 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing
Implementation
Party
Responsible
Party
MM BIO-2: Trimming or removal activities of mature or significant trees will be conducted between August 16 (for nesting birds) or October 1 (for bats) and February 28, outside of the breeding seasons for native bird and bat species. If activities trimming or removal activities must be conducted during the breeding season, qualified biologist shall survey the tree to be impacted to assess the presence or absence of any active bird nest and a qualified bat specialist shall conduct bat surveys within these areas (plus a 100-foot buffer as access allows) to identify potential habitat that could provide daytime and/or nighttime roost sites and any maternity roosts or bat maternity roost. If either are determined to be present, trimming or removal activities will be postponed until after the breeding season has concluded, or until otherwise deemed acceptable by the qualified biologist due to a discontinuation of nesting bird activity or bat roost vacancy.

Prior to tree trimming activities between March 1 and August 17 Applicant/Developer (Private Projects) or South Pasadena (Public Projects) South Pasadena Community Development Department
MM BIO-3: Within six months of the adoption of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update, the City shall develop a list of fire-resistant plant species that excludes exotic plant species with a high or moderate rating on the California Invasive Plant Council’s invasive plant inventory. This fire-resistant plant list shall be the basis of any requirements or recommendations to residents, businesses, and/or developers of future projects in hillside areas that require fireresistant construction and landscaping.

Within six months of the adoption of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update South Pasadena Community Development Department
South Pasadena Community Development Department
MM BIO-4: If the disturbance limits of any future development project are within 500 feet of native vegetation located in the Arroyo Seco drainage corridor, the Applicant/Developer shall have a biological assessment conducted. A biological assessment shall also be conducted for all future development on or immediately adjacent to vacant, naturally vegetated parcels. All assessments shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall identify all potential sensitive biological resources, analysis shall place emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, sensitive, regionally, and locally unique species, and sensitive habitats. Impact analysis will aid in determining any direct, indirect, and cumulative biological impacts. and Analysis shall provide recommendations for focused surveys (if warranted) and/or avoidance or minimization conditions for project implementation. The assessment shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities (including, but not limited to, equipment and materials staging, grubbing, and fence installation). As a condition of project approval, the City shall require the Applicant/Developer to adhere to all recommendations of the biological assessment such that project-level impacts are not expected to reduce regional populations of plant and wildlife species to below self-sustaining levels.

Prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities including but not limited to equipment and materials staging, grubbing and fence installation Applicant/Developer South
Pasadena Community Development Department
16 - 86
City of South Pasadena
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update &
2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\MMRP\South Pas GPU_DTSP_HE_MMRP-091523.docx 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing
Implementation
Party
Responsible
Party
MM BIO-5: If project construction activities of any future development project have the potential to impact (e.g., dredge and fill, demolition, dewatering or other discharge) a channel/drainage that conveys water during rainfall events, at a minimum, or as recommended by the qualified biologist conducting an assessment per MM BIO-4 above (if also applicable), shall conduct a jurisdictional delineation to determine if impacted channel/drainage meets definition of State and federal regulations. If the delineation report, prepared by a qualified biologist, indicates potential regulated drainage(s), subsequent consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies (depending on the agency jurisdiction[s]) and acquisition of permits, if required, prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities (including, but not limited to, equipment and materials staging, grubbing, and fence installation). As a condition of project approval, the City shall require the Applicant/Developer to adhere to all permit conditions.

Prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities including but not limited to equipment and materials staging, grubbing and fence installation.

Applicant/Developer South
Pasadena Community Development Department
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources MM CUL-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Applicants for future development projects shall demonstrate to the City Community Development Department that a qualified Archaeologist has been retained by the applicant to attend the pre-grading meeting with the construction contractor to establish, based on the site plans, appropriate procedures for monitoring earthmoving activities during construction. The Archaeologist shall determine when monitoring of grading activities is needed. If any archaeological resources are discovered, construction activities must cease within 50 feet of the discovery, or as determined by the Archaeologist, and they shall be protected from further disturbance until the qualified Archaeologist evaluates them using standard archaeological protocols. The Archaeologist must first determine whether an archaeological resource uncovered during construction is a “Tribal Cultural Resources” pursuant to Section 21074 of the California Public Resources Code, or a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Section 21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code or a “historical resource” pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a “Tribal Cultural Resource”, “unique archaeological resource” or a “historical resource”, the Archaeologist shall formulate a Mitigation Plan in consultation with the Applicant and the City Community Development Department that satisfies the requirements of the abovelisted Code sections. Upon approval of the Mitigation Plan by the City, the Project shall be implemented in compliance with the Plan. If the Archaeologist determines that the resource is not a “Tribal Cultural Resource”, “unique archaeological resource” or “historical resource,” s/he shall record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). The Archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a testing or mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. The report shall follow guidelines of the California Office of Historic Preservation. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the CHRIS at the SCCIC at the California State University, Fullerton.

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Applicant/Developer South
Pasadena Community Development Department
16 - 87
City of South Pasadena
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update &
2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\MMRP\South Pas GPU_DTSP_HE_MMRP-091523.docx 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing
Implementation
Party
Responsible
Party
Geology and SoilsMM GEO-1: Should potential paleontological resources be found during ground-disturbing activities for any individual project implemented under the General Plan and DTSP Update & 2021–2029 Housing Element, ground-disturbing activity in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be temporarily halted and a qualified paleontologist will be hired to evaluate the resource. If the potential resource is found not to be significant by the paleontologist, construction activity in the area of the find can resume. If the resource is found to be significant, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in consultation with the City and the developer (if present), for further exploration and/or salvage. A Disposition of the Recovered Paleontological Resources and Mitigation Report shall be prepared by the qualified paleontologist and submitted to the City. Any recovered fossils shall be deposited in an accredited institution or museum, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

During grounddisturbing activities Applicant/Developer South Pasadena Community Development Department
Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Applicants for future development projects shall:

1. Investigate the project site to determine whether it or immediately adjacent areas have a record of hazardous material contamination via the preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, which shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department for review. If the Phase I ESA concludes there are recognized environmental conditions that indicate the potential for on-site contamination, the Applicant shall direct the performance of a subsurface investigation appropriate in scope to the likely contaminants (e.g., water, soil, soil vapor). The results of the investigation shall be submitted to the City.

2. If contamination is identified on the site, the City, in accordance with appropriate regulatory oversight agencies (e.g., California Toxic Substances Control, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board), shall determine the need for further investigation and/or remediation of the site. If further investigation or remediation is required, it shall be the responsibility of the Applicant(s) to complete such investigation and/or remediation to the satisfaction of the City and the local oversight agency(ies).

3. Closure reports or other reports that document the successful completion of required remediation activities, if any, shall be submitted to and approved by acceptable to the City (as the Certified Uniform Program Agency) and the local oversight agency(ies) prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed site development.

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
Applicant/Developer South
Pasadena Community Development Department
16 - 88
City of South Pasadena
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update &
2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\MMRP\South Pas GPU_DTSP_HE_MMRP-091523.docx 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing
Implementation
Party
Responsible
Party
MM HAZ-2: In the event that previously unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater contamination that could present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately and the City shall be notified. If contamination is encountered, the Applicant for the proposed development shall be responsible for preparing and implementing a Risk Management Plan that (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post-development and (2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include, but not be limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post-development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate oversight agencies shall be notified. If determined necessary by the oversight agency(ies), a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets California Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area.

During construction activities, if previously unknown soil and/or groundwater contamination is encountered Applicant/Developer South
Pasadena Community Development Department
Noise MM NOI-1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new residential or mixed-use development projects, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit an acoustical report or other substantial evidence to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, that demonstrates that the project will satisfy the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard, including identification of reasonable and feasible noise mitigation measures if determined necessary. It is the responsibility of the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, to ensure that any necessary mitigation measures are fully and properly implemented.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new residential or mixed-use development project Applicant/Developer South
Pasadena Community Development Department
MM NOI-2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new residential or mixed-use development projects, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit an acoustical report or other substantial evidence to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, that demonstrates that the interior noise levels in all habitable rooms will satisfy the California Building Code 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard, including identification of reasonable and feasible noise mitigation measures if determined necessary. It is the responsibility of the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, to ensure that any necessary mitigation measures are fully and properly implemented.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new residential or mixed-use development project Applicant/Developer South
Pasadena Community Development Department
16 - 89
City of South Pasadena
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update &
2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\MMRP\South Pas GPU_DTSP_HE_MMRP-091523.docx 7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing
Implementation
Party
Responsible
Party
MM NOI-3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit and/or certificate of occupancy for nonresidential development projects, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit an acoustical report or other substantial evidence to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, that demonstrates:
 Exterior noise levels at adjacent property lines will satisfy the South Pasadena Municipal Code Section s19A.7(b), 19A.12, and 19.21(c) exterior noise level limits, and satisfy any conditions of approval. The site-specific acoustical report shall identify the necessary measures, if any, required to reduce exterior noise levels to below the South Pasadena Municipal Code Section 19A.7(b), 19A.12, and 19.21(c) exterior noise level limits, and satisfy any conditions of approval.  Acoustical isolation between units has been included in the project design for residential dwelling units situated above non-residential uses.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit and/or certificate of occupancy for nonresidential development projects Applicant/Developer South
Pasadena Community Development Department
MM NOI-4: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new development, the Project Applicant/ Developer shall submit a final acoustical report to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, that demonstrates:
 Exterior construction noise levels at the closest sensitive receiver locations will satisfy the FTA 80 dBA Leq residential and 85 dBA Leq commercial 8-hour construction noise level standards and the County of Los Angeles 0.01 in/sec root-mean-square velocity (RMS) vibration standard. The site-specific report shall identify the necessary reduction measures, if any, required to reduce exterior noise and vibration levels to below FTA noise and County of Los Angeles vibration thresholds.  Measures to reduce construction noise and vibration levels, such as but not limited to those provided below, shall be incorporated in the final acoustical report:
o Install temporary construction noise barriers at the project site boundary that break the line of sight for occupied sensitive uses for the duration of construction activities. The noise control barrier(s) must provide a solid face from top to bottom and shall:
 Provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA and be constructed with an acoustical blanket (e.g., vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new development Applicant/Developer South
Pasadena Community Development Department
16 - 90
City of South Pasadena
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update &
2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\MMRP\South Pas GPU_DTSP_HE_MMRP-091523.docx 8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing
Implementation
Party
Responsible
Party
blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts;  Be properly maintained with any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired.  Install sound dampening mats or blankets to the engine compartments of heavy mobile equipment (e.g., graders, dozers, heavy trucks). The dampening materials must be capable of a 5 dBA minimum noise reduction, must be installed prior to the use of heavy mobile construction equipment, and must remain installed for the duration of the equipment use.  Construction activities requiring pile driving within 400 feet, large bulldozers within 100 feet, loaded trucks within 50 feet, or jackhammers within 25 feet of nearby sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, school) shall be minimized, or alternative equipment or methods shall be used, unless the vibration levels are shown to be less than the County of Los Angeles RMS threshold of 0.01 in/sec.

MM NOI-5: The Project Applicant/Developer of any site-specific development within 25 feet of an historic resource shall engage a qualified structural engineer to conduct a pre-construction assessment of the structural integrity of the nearby historic structure(s) and, prior to the issuance of a building permit, submit evidence to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, that the operation of vibration-generating equipment associated with the new development would not result in structural damage to the adjacent historic building(s). If recommended by the pre-construction assessment, ground borne vibration monitoring of nearby historic structures shall be required.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit
Applicant/Developer South
Pasadena Community Development Department
MM NOI-6: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new development projects within 50 feet of the Metro A Line, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit a final vibration study to the City of South Pasadena Community Development Department, or designee, which shall identify and require implementation of reasonable and feasible vibration reduction measures to avoid exceeding the 72 VdB residential and 75 VdB non-residential vibration level standards.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new development projects within 50 feet of the Metro A Line Applicant/Developer South
Pasadena Community Development Department
16 - 91
City of South Pasadena
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update &
2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\MMRP\South Pas GPU_DTSP_HE_MMRP-091523.docx 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing
Implementation
Party
Responsible
Party
MM NOI-7: The Project Applicant/Developer for new development shall be responsible for ensuring that following requirements are implemented by the contractor throughout the construction period. Construction contractors shall be required to implement the following measures to reduce noise levels from construction activity:
 equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards, and all stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise-sensitive use nearest the construction activity;  locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receiver nearest to the construction activity; and  limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment by Section 19A.13(a) of the South Pasadena Municipal Code. The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses to delivery truck noise.

During construction activities
Applicant/Developer South
Pasadena Community Development Department
16 - 92
City of South Pasadena
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Update &
2021–2029 Housing Element Implementation Programs
R:\Projects\SPA\3SPA010100\Environmental Documentation\MMRP\South Pas GPU_DTSP_HE_MMRP-091523.docx 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This page intentionally left blank
16 - 93

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
16 - 94
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit C: Statement of Overriding Considerations
----
16 - 95

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
16 - 96
[DRAFT] EXHIBIT C
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the approval of the General Plan Update / Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) adoption / Housing Element Implementation Project (the “Project”), as more fully described in the Program EIR prepared for the Project. The comprehensive General Plan and DTSP Update was undertaken by the City to strengthen its commitment to protecting the characteristics that make South Pasadena a desirable place to live, reflect an understanding of current community 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 Housing Element is one of the State-mandated elements of a General Plan. It identifies the City’s housing conditions, needs, and opportunities and establishes the goals, policies, and actions (programs) that are the foundation of the City’s housing strategy. The 2021-2029 Housing Element was adopted on May 30, 2023, and includes certain programs that must be completed within 120 days, pursuant to the settlement and stipulated judgment resulting from Housing Element litigation. The Housing Element Implementation Programs covered by the Program EIR include various zoning text and map amendments.

The Final Program EIR identified the following significant unavoidable adverse impacts:
• Aesthetics (Visual Character at a program and cumulative level); • 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); • Cultural Resources (Historic Resources at a program and cumulative level); • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG Emissions at a cumulative level); • Noise (Construction and Exterior Traffic Noise Standards Violation at a program and cumulative level); and
• Population and Housing (Population Growth at a program and cumulative level).

Therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required for the Project. The City Council of the City of South Pasadena finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final Program EIR if such impacts had been found to be significant and unavoidable. In making this finding the City Council balanced the benefits of the Project against the potential significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project.

The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project independently warrants approval of the Project notwithstanding the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final Program EIR.
16 - 97
Comprehensive Update: The current General Plan was last updated and adopted by the City in 1998. The proposed General Plan Update presents an opportunity to re-evaluate the City’s values; address broader issues; and respond to the changing economic, environmental, legal, and social settings. The proposed General Plan Update has been developed with extensive public input and participation and better articulates the City’s vision for ultimate development than the current General Plan. The Project updates the City’s General Plan with the goals of protecting the characteristics that make South Pasadena a desirable place to live, reflect an understanding of current community 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.

Citywide Vision: The proposed General Plan Update reflects the collective vision of residents, business owners, stakeholders, community groups, City staff and leaders, and was developed with the following guiding principles:
• 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. • 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. • 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.
• 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.
• Develop clear and precise standards that offer predictable outcomes and processes. • 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.
• 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. • Increase individual, institutional, and business capacity to survive and adapt to any chronic stress or acute shocks and be able to recover and thrive. • 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.
• Create a vibrant cultural center by weaving creative expressions into everyday life.

These principles are embodied by the proposed General Plan Update and would improve livability and the quality of life of all residents, businesses, employees and visitors in South Pasadena. 16 - 98
Land Use Compatibility: The Land Use Policy Map in the proposed General Plan Update preserves the City’s established low density residential neighborhoods by designating these areas to reflect existing development densities. Future development and redevelopment are also anticipated and promoted in specific focus areas which would benefit from redevelopment, revitalization and new investment through changes in existing land uses or increases in densities/intensities.

Specifically, the Project establishes the Downtown Specific Plan which outlines a vision for the transformation of an approximately 20-block area of Downtown South Pasadena focused on Fair Oaks Avenue and Mission Street. Over the past decades, even though Fair Oaks Avenue has remained economically alive, it has seen significant decline in its quality of place due to sprawl buildings and poor landscape. Mission Street by contrast has retained its historic character particularly around the Metro A Line Station, and new infill along with successful retail businesses have made it one of the most important destinations in the city. The DTSP vision identifies a series of distinct planning strategies to guide the social and economic future of Fair Oaks and Mission Street, for the benefit of the community.

Economic Stability: The Our Prosperous Community Chapter responds to the City’s need to maintain and enhance the fiscal health of the local economy, and to support uses that provide high-quality jobs, generate tax revenues, and diversify South Pasadena’s tax base. By allowing mixed use developments and increased intensities in the City’s downtown area, commercial districts and near the METRO A Line station in the Land Use Policy Map, the City would sustain a resilient and thriving local economy, as well as protect its employment base.

Open Space Protection: The proposed General Plan Update preserves the open space resources in the City by designating these areas as Preserves and Parks and Open Spaces. These designations would preclude any future development in parks, drainage channels, and public recreational facilities and promote long-term protection of these areas for open space.

Housing Needs: The Housing Element of the proposed General Plan Update has been developed to meet the City’s existing and future housing needs, as defined by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The update also increases housing opportunities in the City and promotes the development of Accessory Dwelling Units, mixed-use development and multi-family development in commercial areas and the redevelopment of under-utilized property in existing multi-family zones to the current housing stock. It also seeks to protect existing residents in rental properties through the creation of a comprehensive series of Tenant Protection Programs.

Specifically, the Project will implement various programs set forth in the City’s adopted Housing Element, including, but not limited to :
• Program 2.e - Facilitate Density Bonus for Projects with On-site Affordable Housing by updating the City’s density bonus ordinance
• Program 2.h - Incentivize Special-Needs Housing by updating zoning ordinance to address the Employee Housing Act
• Program 2.m – Update Inclusionary Housing Regulations to adjust program requirements
16 - 99
• Program 3.a - Rezone and Redesignate Sites to Meet RHNA • Program 3.b - Mixed-Use Developments and Adaptive Re-Use to establish mixeduse standards in the DTSP area. • Program 3.n – Zoning Changes
Sustainability: The proposed General Plan Update responds to regional concerns for resource protection and environmental sustainability by promoting mixed use developments, alternative transportation systems, higher density/intensity uses near the rail station, energy and water conservation, solid waste reduction, and vehicle trip reduction. Goals and policies in the Our Accessible Community, Our Well Planned Community and Our Resilient Community chapters, along with the implementation actions for these goals and policies would create a more sustainable community in South Pasadena for the benefit of existing and future residents.

The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project, which cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. 16 - 100

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
16 - 101
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution - Adoption of General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan 16 - 102
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 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. 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
16 - 103
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Resolution No. ___