The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutG-3 Staff Report - Second Reading of Ordinance TOD Specific Plan AmendmentORDINANCES/SPECIAL RESOLUTIONS G-3 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL VIA: STEPHAN E. HUNT, CHIEF OF POLICE/ACTING CITY MANAGER FROM: KURT CHISTIANSEN, FAICP, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: JULY 17, 2017 SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2017-06 FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA-2017-01) AMENDING THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN SUMMARY: At the June 19, 2017 City Council meeting, a public hearing was conducted and Ordinance No. 2017-06 was introduced for first reading, amending the Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan, by title only, and adopts Ordinance No. 2017-06. The proposed action, reads by title only, second reading and adopts Ordinance No. 2017-06, amending the Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council take the following action: 1)Read by title only, second reading and adoption, Ordinance No. 2017-06, amending the Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan. DISCUSSION: Attached to this Staff Report (Attachment 1) is the proposed Ordinance No. 2017-06 which was introduced at the June 19, 2017 City Council meeting. The City Council asked for text removal and modification concerning renaming Route 66. APPROVED CITY COUNCIL 7/17/2017 Specific Plan Amendment No. SPA-2017-01 July 17, 2017 Page 2 Text Removal/Modifications: Page 2-5: Modified text under ‘Route 66 District’ to read: ‘New development is oriented onto Foothill Boulevard and Alosta Avenue creating a continuation of the street edge. and the street will be renamed “Route 66” to embrace its historic context.’ Page 2-48: Modified text under ‘2.6.1 District Character’ to read: ‘The portions of Foothill Boulevard and Alosta Avenue that traverse Azusa will be renamed “Route 66” to embrace and draw attention to its historic Route 66 context. Page 3-24: Removed Foothill Boulevard Improvement Recommendation 3.3.5.A, with recommendation items below being renumbered. Page 5-13: Removed the ‘Foothill Boulevard Naming’ item from the Implementation Action Plan. If no further revisions to the Ordinance are desired, the City Council can move for the adoption of the Ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. As proposed, the Metro grant will also allocate funding for Staff time, which will result in a savings to the City’s General Fund. The City is requesting the amendments and all associated entitlements costs are waived. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Edson Ibañez Kurt Christiansen, FAICP Assistant Planner Economic and Community Development Director Reviewed and Approved: Reviewed and Approved: Louie F. Lacasella Stephan E. Hunt Management Analyst Chief of Police/Acting City Manager Attachment: 1) Ordinance No. 2017-06 ORDINANCE NO. 2017-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE TOD SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the TOD Specific Plan and associated Zone Change at a regular meeting on November 2, 2015; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Azusa, after giving notice thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on May 24, 2017 for a City -initiated amendment to the TOD Specific Plan (Specific Plan Amendment No. SPA-2017-01); and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed Specific Plan Amendment No. SPA-2017-01 at a regular meeting on June 19, 2017, and conducted a first reading of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordina nce have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The TOD Specific Plan is hereby revised as follows: 1. Entire Document Revise date on page footers to May 2017. 2. Cover/TOC Add “Amended on [Month] [Date], 2017” on Cover Page Add “Amended by: Ordinance No. XXXX-XXX” on Title Page 3. Page 2-20, 2-30, 2-44, and 2-57 Add text allowing architectural projections/features as follows: “Architectural projections/features may exceed the height limits of this District up to 10 feet, subject to Economic and Community Development Director approval. Projections/features should be architecturally compatible and aesthetically pleasing or be screened from view. Neon signage, historic graphics, and/or other non-business or project specific related screening methods may be considered appropriate, subject to Economic and Community Development Director approval.” 4. Page 2-16, 2-26, 2-40, 2-52, 2-66, and 2-77 Ordinance No. 2017-06 Page 2 of 5 Add Superscript 1 to ‘Medical Office/Service’ use with Note stating “Only Medical Services – Doctor Office use permitted on a second or upper floor”. Add Superscript 2 to ‘Office’ use with Note stating “Only Office-Processing and Office-Professional are permitted on a second or upper floor.” 5. Page 2-66 Change ‘Medical Services – Doctor Office’ in Allowable Use Table to ‘Medical Office/Service’ to ensure consistency of language betwe en Districts. 6. Page 2-59 Modify text under subtitle ‘Use of Exposed Neon Tubing’ to read as follows:  “The use of neon (exposed gaseous light tubing) and LED signage is required within the Route 66 District and shall meet the following requirements:” 7. Page 2-26 Add “Theater” as an allowable use under Recreation, Education, and Public Assembly in the Allowable Uses Table through a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MUP). 8. Page 2-16, 2-26, 2-40, and 2-52 Add “Operating between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am” use under Retail Sales in the Allowable Uses Table through a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MUP). 9. Page 2-16, 2-26, and 2-40 Add “Outdoor Displays and Sales” use under Retail Sales in the Allowable Uses Table through a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MUP). 10. Page 2-40 Add “Massage Parlor” under Services General in the Allowable Uses Table through a Special Permit (SP). 11. Page 2-11 Add text clarifying guest parking requirements for stand-alone and mixed-use projects as follows:  “Projects with only residential uses are required to provide 1 guest parking space for every 6 residential units. Mixed-use projects containing residential uses are not required to provide guest parking spaces.” Add parking requirements for ‘Theater’ uses as follows:  “1 space/200 sf in a mixed-use project; may require a parking analysis to determine total spaces needed by use.” SECTION 3. On November 2, 2015 , the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2015021018) (FEIR) for the Specific Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000 et seq.) As described above, the City is considering making certain minor modifications to the Specific Plan, each of which was analyzed in the FEIR. Ordinance No. 2017-06 Page 3 of 5 State CEQA Guidelines §15162 provide that when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, one or more of the following:  Substantial changes are proposed in the project that would require major revision to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or  Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or  New information of substantial importance shows that the project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, or that significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe, or that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but the City Council declined to adopt them, or mitigation measures or alternatives that are different from those included in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment but the City Council declined to adopt them. Section 15006 of the State CEQA Guidelines expressly encourages public agencies to reduce delay and paperwork associated with implementation of CEQA by using previously prepared environmental documents when those previously prepared documents adequately address potential impacts of the proposed project. Here, because the City is not considering making any substantive changes to the Specific Plan, it can be seen with certainty that: (1) there will be no new significant impacts or more severe significant impacts than were previously disclosed in the EIR; (2) there have been no changes in the circumstances under which the Specific Plan was approved and the EIR certified such that previously undisclosed impacts will occur; and (3) no new information has come to light that was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified showing that previously undisclosed impacts will occur. In light of the standards for subsequent environmental review outlined in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, no subsequent review is required here, and no changes to the previously certified EIR are necessary pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164. SECTION 4. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Ordinance is based are located at the City Clerk’s office located at 213 E. Foothill Blvd., Azusa, CA 917025. The custodian of these records is the City Clerk. Ordinance No. 2017-06 Page 4 of 5 SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of Azusa hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its adoption. SECTION 7. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. Not later than fifteen (15) days following the passage of this Ordinance, the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, along with the names of the City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance, shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Azusa. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Azusa, California, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ____ day of ___________________, 20___, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: City of Azusa ________________________________ Joseph R. Rocha, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Jeffrey Cornejo, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Ordinance No. 2017-06 Page 5 of 5 _______________________________ Marco Martinez, City Attorney CERTIFICATION I, Jeffrey Cornejo, City Clerk of the City of Azusa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. ____ is the actual Ordinance No. ____ that was introduced at a regular meeting of said City Council on the _____ day of _______________, 20___ and was finally passed and adopted not less than five (5) days thereafter on the ____ day of _____________, 20___ by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Jeffrey Cornejo, City Clerk