HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/05/12 (8)
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 12, 1993
Page 1
s.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Modifications to the Floor Area Ratio requirements In
single-familv residential zones - Citv initiated
A. BACKGROUND
1. On September 15, 1992, the City Council requested staff to review the existing
floor area ratio (FAR) requirements for single-family zones, Staff was requested
to provide information as to whether the City's existing FAR system is the best
method, what other alternatives exist, and whether different FAR requirements
should be imposed in older parts of the City,
2, On January 12, 1993, Council considered the staff report on FAR requirements
and directed staff to obtain input from the Planning Commission and return with
a report on an alternative which would increase the FAR for smaller lots, and
provide an exemption for open patio covers and porches,
3, On February 10, 1993, the Planning Commission was asked for input on the FAR
report and on the alternatives selected by Council for further consideration, None
of the Commission members expressed any concerns with the alternatives selected
for additional study,
4, On March 9, 1993, Council directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance to increase
the maximum building area for single family dwellings within R-l zones on lots
of less than 7,000 sq, ft. from 45% to 50% of the lot area or 3,150 sq, ft.
whichever is less, and to exempt up to a maximum of 300 sq, ft. of patio and/or
porch areas from the FAR limit.
5, An Initial Study, 15-93-31, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the
project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on April 5,
1993, The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no
significant environmental effects and recommended that the Negative Declaration
be adopted,
B, RECOMMENDATION
1, Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the
Negative Declaration issued on 15-93-31.
2, Adopt Resolution No, PCA-93-02 recommending that the City Council enact the
attached draft City Council ordinance to amend the Floor Area Ratio requirements,
If...j
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 12, 1993
Page 2
C, DISCUSSION
The stated desire of Council in modifying the FAR is to provide smaller lots of less than
7,000 square feet in the older, established portions of the City with a greater opportunity
to expand their dwellings in a manner more consistent with that which is provided for in
the newer planned communities to the east.
The floor area ratio (FAR) is obtained by dividing the total area of all floors of a
building(s) by the total lot area,
Increase in FAR for smaller lots
The present FAR for all R-I zoned areas and single-family developments within older
planned communities is 0.45, The FAR for newer planned communities such as
EastLake, Rancho del Rey, and Sun bow varies, but is generally based on a sliding scale
which allows a proportionately greater FAR on smaller lots, such as 0.45 for lots 7,000
sq, ft. or greater, 0,50 for lots between 6,000-7,000 sq, ft., and 0,55 for lots between
5,000-6,000 sq, ft. The attached table presents a comparison of FAR's for lots between
5,000-7,000 sq, ft.
The table shows that an increase in the FAR from 0.45 to 0,50 for lots under 7,000 sq,
ft. would provide an increase in allowable floor area of from 250 sq, ft. for 5,000 sq, ft.
lots (from 2,250 to 2,500 sq, ft.) to 350 sq, ft. for 6,999 sq, ft. lots (from 3,150 to 3,500
sq, ft.), These figures would appear to provide for a reasonable opportunity to expand
consistent with the size of the lot and with homes available in the newer planned
communities,
The table also reveals, however, that as lots approach 7,000 sq, ft., the application of a
0,50 FAR would allow more floor area than that which would be allowed on larger lots
of over 7,000 sq, ft. subject to a 0.45 FAR. This inequity can be addressed by
establishing, along with the 0,50 FAR, an upper limit of 3,150 sq, ft., which equates to
a 0.45 FAR on a 7,000 sq, ft. lot. It is recommended this limit be used in the R-l zone,
An FAR of 0,55 for lots between 5,000-6,000 sq, ft. was also considered, This would
provide an increase in allowable floor area of from 500 sq, ft. for 5,000 sq, ft. lots (from
2,250 to 2,750 sq, ft.) to 600 sq, ft. for 6,999 sq, ft. lots (from 2,699 to 3,299 sq, ft.),
Although this further increase in FAR for the smallest lots would be more consistent with
that allowed in the newer planned communities, we feel the results would be less
predictable and likely less desirable in existing, developed areas for the following reasons,
First, developments of less than 6,000 sq, ft. in planned communities are planned and
developed as a total package, including the siting and interrelationship among dwellings,
the floor plans and architecture of the homes, and development standards which strictly
control or even prohibit additions, As a result, the scale and bulk of the dwellings and
character of the neighborhood is predetennined and known to the City, the developer and
(' - 'a.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of May 12, 1993
Page 3
each prospective homeowner, In contrast, there is no design control in existing,
developed R-l areas, Additions of any sort can be added as long as they meet the bulk
and setback standards,
Secondly, many neighborhoods in the Montgomery Specific Plan area have been rezoned
to R-I-5, Therefore, although the nonnal expectation would be to have the smallest lots
distributed throughout an area (the R-l zone provides that 70% of the lots shall be 7,000
sq, ft. or greater, 20% between 6,000-7,000 sq. ft., and no more than 10% between 5,000-
6,000 sq, ft.), these areas in Montgomery would involve entire neighborhoods with the
0,55 FAR allowance and no design control.
For these reasons, we are not recommending that the FAR be further increased for the lots
between 5,000-6,000 sq, ft.
Patio Covers and Porches
The City Council also asked staff to evaluate a proposal to exempt open patio covers and
porches from the FAR requirements, The newer planned communities provide an
exemption for open patio covers of not more than 300 sq, ft. For purposes of this
exemption, an open patio cover is defined as one that is open on at least two sides, with
a lattice-type roof no more than 50% covered, This type of structure represents more of
an open element rather than building mass, and in staff's opinion could be exempted in
all R-l areas without creating a problem, If this exemption were broadened to include
patio covers which are solid, there could be a greater visual impact in some cases,
However, an exemption which applied equally to all patio covers would be less difficult
to administer than one which distinguishes between a solid roof and an open-lattice roof,
and staff would not be opposed to such an exemption,
Finally, Council asked staff to consider whether or not covered porches should be exempt
from the FAR. Porches, which generally have a solid covering, are usually modest in
size, constituting no more than 50 square feet or so, We feel that it would be appropriate
for them to be included in the same exemption as patio covers, up to an overall maximum
of 300 square feet for both patio covers and porches,
The amendments listed in Exhibit A and the attached draft City Council Ordinance
include "housekeeping" measures to include the appropriate FAR standard in each
applicable zone rather than only by reference to the present language in the R-E zone
(Section 19,22,160),
WPC F:\HOMBPLANNING'852.93
f'-.3
F,A,R. COMPARlSON
Lot Area 45% 50% 55%
7,000 3,150
6,999 3,149 3,499
6,800 3,060 3,400
6,600 2,970 3,300
6,400 2,880 3,200
6,200 2,790 3,100
6,000 2,700 3,000
5,999 2,699 2,999 3,299
5,800 2,610 2,900 3,190
5,600 2,520 2,800 3,080
5,400 2,430 2,700 2,970
5,200 2,340 2,600 2,860
5,000 2,250 2,500 2,751
,
Pany\f..,.,ornp"g
,,~~
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 19,22 R-E RESIDENTIAL EST ATE ZONE
Section 19,22,160
Floor Area Ratio,
Construction of dwellings or any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings shall have
a floor area ratio (FAR) which limits the maximum building area to 45% of the lot area for
single family dwellings on lots of 7.000 square feet or greater and 50% of the lot area or 3.150
SqUare feet. whichever is less. for single familv dwellings on lots of less than 7.000 square feet.
aRa 55% of tile lot area f-ar GllfIlexes, The floor area ratio calculation shall also include the
square footage of patios. garages and other accessory structures present on the lot. except that
covered patios and porches with a total combined area of 300 square feet or less are excluded
from the FAR limit. For these purposes. an accessory structure is defined as any structure which
rises 4 or more feet above finished grade,
Chapter 19,24 R-l SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE
Section 19,24,180
Floor Area Ratio
Construction of dwellings or any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings shall have
a floor area ratio (FAR) which limits the maximum building area to 45% of the lot area for
single family dwellings on lots of 7,000 square feet or greater and 50% of the lot area or 3.150
square feet. whichever is less. for single family dwellings on lots of less than 7.000 square feet.
and 55% of tile lot ar-ea for Gllr1e)(es, The floor area ratio calculation shall also include the
square footage of patios, garages and other accessory structures present on the lot, except that
covered patios and porches with a total combined area of 300 square feet or less are excluded
from the FAR limit. For these purposes, an accessory structure is defined as any structure which
rises 4 or more feet above finished grade,
Chapter 19.26 R-2 ONE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE
Section 19,26,180
Floor Area Ratio,
See SectioR 19,22,160 f-ar floer ,'\r-ea Ratio requir-emeRts iR the R 2 ZORes. (Ora, 2114
~4 (raft), 19&6)
Construction of dwellings or anv remodeling or additions to existing dwellings shall have
a floor area ratio (FAR) which limits the maximum building area to 55% of the lot. The floor
area ratio calculation shall also include the square footage of patios. garages and other accessory
structures present on the lot. For these purposes. an accessory structure is defined as any
structure which rises 4 or more feet above finished grade,
WPC F:\HOME"-PLANNING\885.93
if-S
RESOLUTION NO, PCA 93-02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF AN
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 19,22,160, 19.24.180, AND 19,26,180 OF THE CHULA
VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO INCREASING THE MAXIMUM
BUILDING AREA AND EXCLUDING UP TO 300 SQ, Ff, OF PATIO AND PORCH
AREAS FROM THE FAR LIMIT
WHEREAS, on September 15, 1992, the City Council, in response to a citizen inquiry, directed staff to
review the floor area ratio (FAR) standards for residential development, and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 1993, Council considered the report and directed staff to obtain input from the
Planning Commission and return with a report on increasing the FAR for smaller lots, and providing an exemption
for open patio covers and porches, and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 1993, the Planning Commission was asked for input on the FAR report and the
modifications selected by Council for further consideration and none of the Commissioners expressed a concern with
modifications selected for additional study, and
WHEREAS, City Council, on March 9, 1993, directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance to increase the
maximum building area for single family dwellings on lots of less than 7,000 sq, f1. to 50% of the lot area or 3,150
sq, f1., whichever is less, and exempt up to 300 sq, ft, of patio and porch areas from the F.A.R, limit, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said proposed amendment and
notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation
in the city at least ten days prior to the hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p,m" May 12, 1993, in
the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed,
and
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts and
adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS 93-31.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, based on the facts
presented at the hearing, recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft ordinance amending Sections
19.22.160, 19,24,180, and 19,26.180 of the Municipal Code based on the findings contained therein,
That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this 12th day of May, 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Susan Fuller, Chair
Nancy Ripley, Secretary
WPC F:\bome'i'lanning'867.93
9'~~
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AMENDING SECTIONS 19,22,160, 19,24,180 AND 19,26,180 OF
THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY THE
FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS IN SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONES
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Municipal Code text amendment was filed with the
Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on February 3, 1993 by the City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, on March 9, 1993, Council directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance to increase
the maximum building area for single family dwellings within R-l zones on lots of less than 7,000 sq,
ft. from 45% to 50% of the lot area or 3,150 sq, ft. whichever is less, and to exempt up to a maximum
of 300 sq, ft. of patio and/or porch areas from the FAR limit, and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No, PCA-93-02 by
a vote of to recommend that the City Council enact the proposed Municipal Code text
amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS 93-31, of
potential environmental impact associated with the proposal and has concluded that there would be no
significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-
93- 31.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine
and ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That the Project PCA 93-02 will have no significant environmental impacts and
adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-93-31.
SECTION II: That the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice
justifies the amendment and that the amendment is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan,
SECTION III, That Section 19,22,160 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
Section 19,22,160
Floor Area Ratio,
Construction of dwellings or any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings shall have a floor
area ratio (FAR) which limits the maximum building area to 45% of the lot area for single family
dwellings on lots of 7,000 square feet or greater and 50% of the lot area or 3,150 square feet, whichever
is less, for single familv dwellings on lots of less than 7,000 square feet. and 55% ef the let area for
dllpleJ(es, The floor area ratio calculation shall also include the square footage of patios, garages and
other accessory structures present on the lot, except that covered patios and porches with a total
combined area of 300 square feet or less are excluded from the FAR limit. For these purposes, an
accessory structure is defined as any structure which rises 4 or more feet above finished grade,
~-7
Ordinance No,
Page 2
SECTION IV, That Section 19,24,180 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
Section 19,24,180
Floor Area Ratio,
See SeNien 19,22,160 for Fleer N-ea Ratio requirements in the R I zenes, (orn. 2144 ~2 (part),
-l-986j
Construction of dwellings or any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings shall have a floor
area ratio (FAR) which limits the maximum building area to 45% of the lot area for single family
dwellings on lots of 7.000 SQuare feet or greater and 50% of the lot area or 3.150 SQuare feet. whichever
is less, for single family dwellings on lots of less than 7,000 square feet. The floor area ratio calculation
shall also include the square footage of patios, garages and other accessory structures present on the lot,
except that covered patios and porches with a total combined area of 300 square feet or less are excluded
from the FAR limit. For these purposes, an accessory structure is defined as any structure which rises
4 or more feet aboye finished grade,
SECTION V, That Section 19,26,180 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows:
Section 19,26,180
Floor Area Ratio,
See Sectien 19,22,HiO f-er Floer .\rea Ratie requirements in the R 2 zenes,
Construction of dwellings or any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings shall have a floor
area (FAR) which limits the maximum building area to 55% of the lot. The floor area ratio calculation
shall also include the square footage of patios. garages and other accessory structures present on the lot.
For these purposes. an accessory structure is defined as any structure which rises 4 or more feet above
finished grade,
SECTION VI. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the thirtieth
day from and after is adoption,
Presented by
Approved as to fonn by
Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
Bruce M, Boogaard
City Attorney
WPC F:'J:Iome'i>lanning\876.93
~-s
,
negative
declaration
PROJECT NAME: FAR Amendment
PROJECT LOCATION:
City,wide
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO,: N/A
PROJECT APPLICAJ'I.'T: City of Chula Vista
CASE NO: IS-93-31
DATE: April 5, 1993
A, Proiect Senin~
The proposed City-iniated project would be applied city-wide, as an amendment to the Chula
Vista Municipal Code (Section 19,22,160), The proposed zoning text amendment regarding
the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) could be applied to small lot single-family dwelling units (less
than 7,000 square feet) throughout the City of Chula' Vista,
B. Proiect DescriDlion
Section 19,22,160 of the zoning code currently requires that construction of single family
dwellings or any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings conform to a Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) of 45 %, which limits the maximum building area to 45 % of the lot area, The
proposed project would amend the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance by changing the required
FAR to 50% or 3,150 square feet, whichever is less, for lots smaller than 7,000 square feet.
The project would also exempt patio covers and porches (up to a combined area of 300
square feet or less) from the FAR limit (See Attachment A),
Although the present FAR for all R-l zoned areas and single-family developments within
older planned communities is 45%, the FAR for newer planned communities such as
EastLake, Rancho del Rey, and Sunbow varies based upon a sliding scale which allows a
proportionately greater FAR on smaller lots, The proposed revisions to the FAR criteria are
designed to provide for a reasonable opportunity for homes in the older areas of Chula Vista
to expand consistent with the size of the lot and with homes available in the newer planned
communities (See Attachment B),
C, Compatibility with Zonin2 and Plans
The proposed project is an amendment to the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance altering the
required FAR for smaller lots, The project would not effect the underlying zoning or,
General Plan designation on a parceL Therefore, the proposed project is compatible with
zoning and land use designations,
~f~
-.-
r.-...,;~_
~~~~~
city of chuta villa planning department CTtY OF
environmental review ..ctlon CHULA VISTA
'1-1
D, Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project
will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in
accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant.
Visual Imnacts
Increasing the FAR from 45% to 50% for lots under 7,000 square feet could, for example,
provide an increase in allowable floor area from 2,250 to 2,500 square feet for 5,000 square
foot lots, The maximum square footage for any lot under 7,000 square feet would be 3,150
square feet (see table in Attachment B), These figures are consistent with the size of the lot,
and the scale and bulk of homes in the planned communities of the City, and thus would not
have an adverse effect on the visual quality of Chula Vista, The project also involves
exempting patio covers and porches from inclusion in the FAR ratio, Porches are usually
modest in size, constituting no more than approximately 50 square feet. Patio covers are
rarely a significant visual feature of single family dwellings, and open, lattice-type covers are
even less visually obtrusive, The exemption only applies to structures up to a combined area
of 300 square feet or less, Thus, due to the relatively minor nature of these structures, the
Zoning Ordinance amendment to exempt patio covers and porches from the FAR
requirements will not have a significant adverse aesthetic impact on the environment.
E, Miti\!ation necessarv to avoid si\!nificant effects
The proposed project is not associated with any significant or potentially significant
environmental impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation will be required,
F, Consultation
1, Individuals and Or\!anizations
City of Chula Vista: Diana Lilly, Planning
Roger Daoust, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering
Bob Sennett, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Crime Prevention, MaryJane Diosdada
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
.y-/~
WPC NDCHECK.LST
Page 2
Applicant's Agent:
Steve Griffin, City of Chula Vista
2, Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
3, lnitia1 Studv
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any
comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public
review period for this Negative Declaration, The report reflects the independent
judgement of the City of Chula Vista, Further information regarding the
environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning
Deparnnent, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910,
')I- ," . ) ILl '
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev, 12/90)
WPC NDCHECK.LST
~-/I
Page 3
APPENDIX I
Case No, 15-93-31
Background
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
I, Name of Proponent: City of Chula Vista
2, Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 276 Fourth Avenue, 691-5101
3, Date of Checklist: March 29. 1993
4, Name of Proposal: FAR Amendment
5, Initial Study Number: 15-93-31
Environmental Impacts
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in
geologic substructures? D D .
b, Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil? D D .
c, Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? D D .
d, The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? D D .
e, Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? D D .
f, Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? D D .
g, Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? D D .
WPC NDCHECK.L$T
f'-/-a...
Page 4
Comm'nts:
The proposed revisions to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) apply only to structures which have
been previously approved for development, Thus, the project will not impact natural terrain
or topography,
2, Air, Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a, Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? 0 0 .
b, The creation of objectionable odors? 0 0 .
c, Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? 0 0 .
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR will not impact air quality. No air emissions
would be created by implementation of the project.
3, Water. Will the Proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a, Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters? 0 0 .
b, Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? . 0 0 .
c, Alterations to the course or flow or
flood waters? 0 0 .
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? 0 0 .
e, Discharge into surface waters, or any
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 0 0 .
f, Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? 0 0 .
\\!PC NDCHECK.LST
i' -/...3
Page 5
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
eithej through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
o
o
.
h,
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
o
o
.
1.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves"
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR will not have any impact on water quality or availability,
No increase in water usage will result from the proposed zoning code amendments,
4, Plant Life, Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a, Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
plants)? 0 0 .
b, Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? 0 0 .
c, Introduction of new species of plants into
into an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? 0 0 .
d, Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? 0 0 .
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR applies only to dwelling units which have been previously
approved for development, The project is not applicable to undeveloped or natural land,
Thus, the amendment to the zoning code will not impact any plant species or habitat.
5,
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
YES MAYBE NO
a, Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
WPC NDCHECK.LST
J./ -I i
Page 6
-;.
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
o
o
.
b,
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
o
o
.
c,
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
o
o
.
d,
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR applies only to dwelling units which have been previously
approved for development, The project is not applicable to undeveloped or natural land,
Thus, the amendment to the zoning code will not impact any animal species or habitats,
6,
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
YES MAYBE NO
a,
Increases in existing noise levels?
o
o
.
b,
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR will not cause an increase in ambient noise levels,
All structures must comply with the Building Code regarding noise insulation and the
City's Noise Ordinance Standards,
7,
-
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
YES MAYBE NO
o 0 .
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR would not cause light or glare to increase in the City,
8.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
YES MAYBE NO
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed project involves an amendment to the zoning code to increasing the
allowable FAR for single family dwelling units on lots less than 7,000 square feet to
WPC NDCHECK,LST
Y-L~
Page 7
50%, The allowable land use on a sit' would not be altered by the FAR revisions,
9,
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
YES MAYBE NO
a.
Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
o
o
.
Corrunents:
The proposed revisions to the FAR will not cause an increase in the rate of use of
any natural resources such as fossil fuels,
10,
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
YES MAYBE NO
a,
A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
o
o
.
b,
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
o
o
.
Corrunents:
The proposed revisions to the FAR would not result in the use of any explosives or the
release of any hazardous or toxic substances,
II.
Population, Will the proposal alter the location
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population or an area? .
YES MAYBE NO
o
o
.
C orrunents:
The proposed revisions to the FAR would not allow an increase in units or density on a site,
but only increase the amount of building coverage on particular lots, The project applies
only to single family dwellings, and would not be growth-inducing,
12.
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
YES MAYBE NO
o
o
.
Corrunents:
The proposed revisions to the FAR would not result in a need for new housing or alter the
amount of housing stock in the City,
WPC NDCHECK_LST
.,-/~
Page 8
13,
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal re>Jlt in:
YES MAYBE NO
a,
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
b,
Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
o
o
o
.
c,
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
o
o
o
.
d,
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
o
.
.
.
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR would not have any impact on circulation or
transportation systems,
e,
Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
14, Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the following areas:
a,
b,
c,
d,
e,
f.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
g,
A "large project" under the Congestion
Management Program? (An equivalent of
2400 or more average daily vehicle trips
or 200 or more peak -hour vehicle trips),
o
Fire protection?
YES MAYBE NO
o
Police protection?
o
Schools?
o
Parks or other recreational facilities?
o
Libraries?
o
f, Maintenance of public facilities, including
WPC NDCHECK.L$T
9-17
o
o
o
o
o
.
.
.
.
.
Page 9
roads?
o
o
.
g,
Other governmental services?
o
o
.
City routing forms indicated that the proposed revisions to the FAR will not have any impact
on or require any Public Services,
15,
Energy, Will the proposal result in:
YES MAYBE NO
a,
Use of substantial amount of fuel or
energy?
o
o
.
b,
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources or energy, or require
the development of new sources of
energy?
o
o
.
Comments:
Revision of the FAR will not cause an increase in energy consumption,
16,
Thresholds, Will the proposal adversely impact
the City's Threshold Standards?
YES MAYBE NO
o 0 .
Comments:
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven
Threshold Standards,
A, Fire/EMS
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond
to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in
75 % of the cases, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard,
since revisions to the FAR will have no impact on response times,
B, Police
The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority
I calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority
I calls of 4,5 minutes or less, Police units must respond to 62,10% of Priority 2
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority
2 calls of 7 minutes or less, The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard, as the proposed revisions to the FAR will not have any impact on Police
services,
C. Traffic
/I'I'~
WPC NDCHECK.LST
Page 10
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate 1t a Level of
Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D"
may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections,
Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS, No
intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard, The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard since the proposed FAR
amendments will not have any effect on traffic,
D, Parks/Recreation
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acresll,OOO population, The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard since the proposed FAR
revisions do not apply to and will not effect parks or recreation facilities,
E, Drainage
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards, Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard since the proposed
revisions to the FAR will not have any impact on drainage facilities,
F, Sewer
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards, Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards, The proposed
project will comply with this Threshold Standard since the proposed revisions to the
FAR will not have any impact on sewer facilities,
G, Water
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction, The proposed project
will comply with this Threshold Standard since the proposed revisions to the FAR
will not have any impact on water facilities,
17,
Human Health, Will the proposal result in:
YES MAYBE NO
a,
Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health?
o
o
.
b, Exposure of people to potential health
WPC NDCHECK,LST
+"-/"
,
Page II
hazards?
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR pose no threat to human health as it does not involve the
use or discharge of any hazardous or toxic material.
18, Aesthetics. Wi1l the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a, The obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or wi1l the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view? 0 . 0
b, The destruction, or modification of a scenic route? 0 0 .
Comments:
The proposed modification in the FAR will not have an adverse effect on the visual or
aesthetic quality of the City, The proposed increase in allowable building area is small,
(from 45% to 50%) and applies only to single family lots less than 7,000 square feet. The
patio cover and porch exemption is also minor, applicable only up to a total combined area
of 300 square feet or less,
19,
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
YES MAYBE NO
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR does not apply to and will not have any impact on
existing or future recreation sites or facilities,
20, Cultural Resources, YES MAYBE NO
a, Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction or a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? 0 0 .
b. W ill the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure,
or object? 0 0 .
c, Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would
.y, 2,.c)
WPC NDCHECK.LST Page 12
.
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
o
o
.
d,
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
.
o
o
e,
Is the area identified on the City's
General Plan EIR as an area of high
potential for archeological resources?
.
o
o
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR apply only to structures which have been previously
reviewed and approved for development. The revisions do not apply to natural or
undeveloped land, Therefore, the project will not adversely impact cultural resources,
21.
Paleontological Resources, Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction of a paleontological
resource?
YES MAYBE NO
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR apply only to structures which have been previously
reviewed and approved for development, The revisions do not apply to natural or
undeveloped land, Therefore, the project will not adversely impact paleontological resources,
21.
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
YES MAYBE NO
a,
Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
.
o
o
Comments:
The proposed amendment to the zoning code does not have the potential to adversely impact
the quality of the natura] environment, reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, or,
eliminate a plant or community, The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) applies only to built
structures, not to raw or undeveloped land,
WPC NDCHECK.LST
~"::2 /
.
Page 13
b,
Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, defInitive period of time,
while long-term impacts wilI endure welI
into the future,)
.
o
o
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR will not achieve short-term environmental goals at the
expense of long term goals, The project will not have an impact on the underlying zone or
General Plan designation of a site, The exemption for porch and patio covers will alIow a
greater flexibility of design and construction, In the long-term, the project will alIow houses
in the older areas of Chula Vista the opportunity to expand in a manner consistent with the
houses in the newer planned communities,
c,
Does the project have impacts which are
individualIy limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact two
or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively
smalI, but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is
significant. )
.
o
o
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR will not result in any significant, adverse environmental
impacts which are cumulative or growth-inducing in nature, The project will not cause an
increase in density or intensity of use, The project will alIow houses in the older areas of
Chula Vista to expand to a size and bulk consistent with housing available in the newer
planned communities of the City,
d.
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
o
o
.
Comments:
The proposed revisions to the FAR do not have the potentia] to harm human beings either
directly or indirectly, No impacts to human health were identified in the initial study,
WPC NDCHECK.L$T
f ~ 2. 'Z..
Page 14
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency, Check one box only.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
. I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment. and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared,
o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared,
o I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
) " '.! U ({, ,/ f' ) I. <i I, i
Environffiental Review Coordinator
l//17'3
Date
4f r 2.3
WPC NDCHECK.LST
Page 15
APPENDIX II
Case No,
DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION
(Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 - AB 3158)
l It, is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either
individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources and that a "Certificate of Fee Exemption"
shall be prepared for this project.
It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or
cumulatively and therefore fee in accordance with Section 711.4 (d) of the Fish and Game
Code shall be paid to the County Clerk,
) ,',./{ {I 1,1< (( (. ) Ie {i U J
Environmental Review Coordinator
L/ I j '/_:1
Date
WPC NDCHECK. LST
If. 2-1./
Page 16
Attachment A
19,22,160
Floor Area Ratio,
Construction of dwellings or any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings shall have
a floor area ratio (FAR) which limits the maximum building area to 45 % of the lot area for
single family dwellings on lots of 7.000 SQuare feet or lITeater: 50% of the lot area or 3,150
SQuare feet. whichever is less, for sin!!le familv dwellin!!s on lots of less than 7.000 SQuare feet:
and 55 % of the lot area for duplexes, The floor area ratio calrulation shall also include the
square footage of patios, garages and other accessory structures present on the lot, except that
covered patios and porches UP to a total combined area of 300 SQuare feet or less are exemDt
from the FAR limit. For these purposes, an accessory structure is defmed as any structure
which rises 4 or more feet above finished grade, (Ord, 2144 ~2 (part), 1986),
(c.o(kr~..,far)
~r 2-..$
Attachment B
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: Report: PCA-93-Dl; Modification to Floor Area Ratio requirements for
single-family residential zones
SUB~fITTED BY: Director of Planning ~.t
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No.1U
Item _
Meeting Date 3/9/93
On January 12, 1993, Council considered a report on various alternatives to the present Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) requirements and directed stilff to return with a report on an alternative which
would:
I) use a sliding scale with a minimum FAR of 0,50 for smaller lots; and
2) provide an exemption for open patio covers and porches,
RECO~fME'\1)A TI01\;: That Council direct stilff to return with an ordinance to revise the
floor area ratio Jequirements in all R- I zones, based on a sliding scale with an FAR of 0,50 for
lots under 7,000 square feet (with a maximum square footilge to ensure equity for larger lots)
and an exemption for open patio covers and porches of not more than 300 square feet.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On February 10, 1993, the Planning
Commission was asked for input on the earlier report and the alternatives selected by Council
for further consideration, None of the Commission members expressed any concerns regarding
the alternatives outlined by the City Council.
DISCUSSION:
The FAR modifications selected by Council for further consideration appear workable to stilff
with certain qualifications, The Stilted desire of Council is to provide smaller lots of less than
7,000 square feet in the older, estilblished portions of the City with a greater opportunity to
expand their dwellings in a manner more consistent with that which is provided for in the newer
planned communities to the east.
'Slidinl! Scale" FAR
The present FAR for all R-I zoned areas and single-family developments within older planned
communities is 0.45, The FAR for newer planned communities such as EastLake, Rancho del
Rey, and Sunbow varies, but is generally based on a sliding scale which allows a proportionately
I{- '2~
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 3/9/93
greater FAR on smaller lots, such as 0,45 for lots 7,000 sq, ft, or greater, 0,50 for lots between
6,000-7,000 sq, ft" and 0,55 for lots between 5,000-6,000 sq, ft, The attached table presents
a comparison of FAR's for lots between 5,000,7,000 sq, ft,
The table shows that an increase in the FAR from 0,45 to 0,50 for lots under 7,000 sq, ft,
would provide an increase in allowable floor area of from 250 sq, ft, for 5,000 sq, ft, lots (from
2,250 to 2,500 sq, ft,) to 350 sq, ft, for 6,999 sq, ft, lots (from 3,150 to 3,500 sq, ft,), These
figures would appear to provide for a reasonable opportunity to expand consistent with the size
of the lot and with homes available in the newer planned communities,
The table also reveals, however, that as lots approach 7,000 sq. ft" the application of a 0,50
FAR would allow more floor area than that which would be allowed on larger lots of over 7,000
sq, ft, subject to a 0.45 FAR, This inequity can be addressed by establishing, along with the
0,50 FAR, an upper limit of 3,150 sq, ft" which equates to a 0.45 FAR on a 7,000 sq, ft, lot.
It is recommended this limit be used in the R-l zone,
An FAR of 0,55 for lots between 5,000-6,000 sq, ft, was also considered, This would provide
an increase in allowable floor area of from 500 sq, ft, for 5,000 sq, ft, lots (from 2,250 to 2,750
sq, ft.) to 600 sq, ft, for 6,999 sq, ft, lots (from 2,699 to 3,299 sq, ft,), Although this further
increase in FAR for the smallest lots would be more consistent with that allowed in the newer
planned communities, we feel the results would be less predictable and likely less desirable in
existing, developed areas for the following reasons,
First, developments of less than 6,000 sq, ft, in planned communities are planned and developed'
as a total package, including the siting and interrelationship among dwellings, the floor plans and
architecture of the homes, and development standards which strictly control or even prohibit
additions, As a result, the scale and bulk of the dwellings and character of the neighborhood
is predetermined and known to the City, the developer and each prospective homeowner. In
contrast, there is no design control in existing, developed R-l areas, Additions of any sort can
be added as long as they meet the bulk and setback standards,
Secondly, many neighborhoods in the Montgomery Specific Plan area have been rezoned to R-l,
5, Therefore, although the normal expectation would be to have the smallest lots distributed
throughout an area (the R-l zone provides that 70% of the lots shall be 7,000 sq, ft, or greater,
20% between 6,000-7,000 sq, ft" and no more than 10% between 5,000-6,000 sq, ft,), these
areas in Montgomery would involve entire neighborhoods with the 0,55 FAR allowance and no
design control.
For these reasons, we are not recommending that the FAR be further increased for the lots
between 5,000-6,000 sq, ft,
Y'~ :& 7
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 3/9/93
Patio Covers and Porches
The City Council also asked staff to evaluate a proposal to exempt open patio COvers and
porches from the FAR requirements, The newer planned commuruties provide an exemption
for open patio covers of not more than 300 sq, ft, For PillJ'Oses of this exemption, an open
patio cover is defIned as one that is open on at least two sides, with a lanice-type roof no more
than 50% covered, This type of Structure represents more of an open element rather than
building mass, and in staffs opinion could be exempted in all R-I areas without creating a
problem, If this exemption were broadened to include patio covers which are solid, there could
be a greater visual impact in some cases, However, an exemption which applied equally to all
patio covers would be less difficult to administer than one which distinguishes between a solid
roof and an open-Ianice roof, and staff would not be opposed to such an exemption,
Finally, Council asked staff to consider whether or not covered porches should be exempt from
the FAR, Porches, which generally have a solid covering, are usually modest in size,
constituting no more than 50 square feet or so, We feel that it would be appropriate for them
to be included in the same exemption as patio covers, up to an overall maximum of 300 square
feet for both patio covers and porches,
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable,
,
{PCA9~-O:' AJ J3}
..
J/- 2. 9
~
Lot Area ~ 50% 55%
7,000 3,150
6,999 3,149 3,499
6,800 3,060 ,3,400
6,600 2,970 3,300
6,400 2,880 3,200
6,200 2,790 3,100
6,000 2,700 3,000
5,999 2,699 2,999 3,299
5,800 2,610 2,900 3,190
5,600 2;520 2,800 3,080
5,400 2,430 2,700 2,970
5,200 2,340 2,600 2,860
5,000 2,250 2,500 2,751
Panylfarcomp, 'I:
~r':L.,
ROUT! NG FORM
RECEIVED
MAR 1 6 1993
DATE: /1I1arch 15. 1993
"
CITY OF CHULA VISTP,
BUILDING & HOUSING DEPT.
\
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Li~pitt, Engineering (EIR o~ly)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department IOiosdado, Crime Prevention
Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H,S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
FROI'
SUBJECT:
Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
[KK] Application for Initial Study (IS_93-31
c==J Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
o Review of a Draft ErR (EIR-
c==J Review of Environmental Review Record
IFA-618
IFS-
IFS-
FC-
lOP N/A )
lOP )
/OP )
IERR- )
The project consists of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
exemption for patio covers and porches (see attached)
Location:
City Wide
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 3/22/93
Comments:
N~
,
~
I' '\ ~ , I,
\' 1'\' , , (
(J04!
~ . '3J'
f') , r /
,...'
15-00 I
- ,- ---
ROUT! NG FORM
'~1'
,. .- '" ;
L ,,<:; ~ L,
. ~-J.-
... ,
.
.- ~;:-:;yr
DATE:
18
March,jS', 1993
CQ, "fR 16 PM 3= 18
J.;","" n.
/
FR~ ;ro:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR o~ly)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/Z)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department IDiosdado, Crime Prevention
Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chu1a Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H,S, District. Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
-rt>.' ~: Ma ryann Mill er Environmental Section
SUBJECT: [ill Application for Initial Study (15-93-31 /FA_618 fDP NI A )
0 Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR- /FB- IDP )
0 Review of a Draft EIR (EIR- IFB- IDP )
0 Review of Environmental Review Record FC- /ERR- )
The project consists of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
exemption for patio covers and porches (see attached)
Location:
City Wi de
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 3/22/93
Comments:
ND c.cfvJMEt.../TS
. ~-M~
3~1
"'" ' 3/
ROUT! NG FORM
DATE: March 15, 1993
iV" -
. ~ , ;
.of._:._
,- r ~
"
tie-:
F"ro'"
Ken larson, Building & Housing
John lippitt, Engineering (EIR o~ly)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (ISI3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department IDiosdado, Crime Prevention
Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
. //
~:IO;
SUBJECT:
Maryann Mi ller
Environmental Sertien
ill]
o
o
o
Application for Initial Study (IS_93-31
Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
Review of Environmental Review Record
IDP NI A
IDP
IDP
IERR-
)
)
)
)
IFA_618
IFB-
IFB-
FC-
The project consists of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
exemption for patio covers and porches (see attached)
Location:
City Wi de
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 3/22/93
Coments: /JotU'e
y.~z,
Case No. Is - Xi'2/
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
I.
What is the distance to the nearest fire station? Alli! what is the
Fire Department's estimated reaction time? tJ/A
2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire
protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment
or personne 1 ? ~ / A
3. Remarks ;Vove
. /v
\1. flb(jJ;J/}L /
Fir)! Marshal
v
03/~3/rt3
Date
WPC 0413p/9459P
~.~
-12-
ROUTING FORM
DATE: March 15, 1993
/
TO:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR o~ly)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department /Diosdado, Crime Prevention
Current Planning
Frank Herrera, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Le iter, Pl ann i ng Di rector
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
FROM: Maryann Miller Environmental Section
SUBJECT: ill] Application for Initial Study (IS_93-31 IFA-618 /DP N/ A )
0 Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR- IFB- /DP )
0 Review of a Draft EIR (EI R- IFB- /DP )
0 Review of Environmental Review Record FC- /ERR- )
The prOject cons,ists of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
exemption for patio covers and porches (see attached)
Location:
City Wi de
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 3/22/93
Comments:
~~ ef
Pcc.. ~ r--o ~~V.
~.,3,
Case No. -YT- 9.?-_-?/
H-l. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
I. Is project subject to Parks & Recreation
~If not, please explain.
"
2. How any acres of parkland are
projec
T~eshold
/
,
requirements? _____
3.
neighborhood anq,
e the populati '
Neighborhood
Community Parks
/
~cessary to serve the proposed
/
community parks near the project
increase resulting from this project?
4.
If not, are parkland
of the project adequ
Neighborhood
Community B rks
dicati~s or other mitigation proposed
e to serve *he population increase?
".
'-.
as part
,
5.
will
applicant ~qUired
,
..~
to:
"
6.
~,
~Cf,~.
1l~JI~ '
Date
Parks and Recreation Director or Representative
WPC 0413p/9459P
-13-
#-~
ROUTI NG FORM
DATE: March 15, 1993
/
TO:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR o~ly)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department /Diosdado, Crime Prevention
Current Planning
FranK Herrera, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
FROM:
Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
SUBJECT:
ill] Application for Initial Study (IS-93-31
o ChecKprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
o Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
o Review of Environmental Review Record
IDP N/A )
lOP )
lOP )
IERR- )
/FA_618
IFB-
IFB-
FC-
The project consists of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
exemption for patio covers and porches (see attached)
Location:
City Wide
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 3/22/93
Comments:
~17
fLcro
b
~.
.'
.1(...3"
7~
I
ROUTI NG FORM
DATE: March 15, 1993
/
TO:
Ken larson, Building & Housing
John Lippitt, Engineering (EIR o~ly)
Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Richard Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Marty Schmidt, ParKs & Recreation
Keith HawKins, Police Department /Diosdado, Crime Prevention
Current Planning
FranK Herrera, Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City landscape Architect
Bob leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
Maureen Roeber, Library (Final EIR)
Other
.
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Maryann Miller
Environmental Section
ill] Application for Initial Study (IS-93-31
o Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-
o Review of a Draft EIR (EIR-
o Review of Environmental Review Record
lFA-618
/FB-
/FB-
FC-
/DP N/A )
/DP )
/DP )
/ERR- )
The project cons,ists of:
Amend FAR to 50% for smaller lots and provide
exemption for patio covers and porches (see attached)
Location:
City Wi de
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 3/22/93
Comments:
///
Cc /~ I /'lJ: ~
~...~L./
T-,
c:;
'3 - 2>-93
.y.37
CITY DATA
Case No. .:7<:.,- y,,-?- .</
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I. Current Zonino on site: C:L~'-WiiLe..
North '"4
South
East
West
Does the project conform to the current zoning? ~/A
2.
General Plan land use
des i gnat i on on site: C:+u - \..vJ'tt (..
North """"1
South
East
West
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram?
AJ/,A-
,
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated? c.:.~ -""':d..t...
.
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~~ ~~~ .
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to pro ect or enhance
the scenic quality of the route.) ~J~
3. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Schoo 1
Permanent
Caoacitv
Temporary
Caoacitv
Current
Enro 11 ment
Students
Generated
From Proiect
El ementary
Jr. High
Sr. High
4. Remarks:
r0/A
Representative
3h.y? -5
, Date
~
WPC 0413p/9459P
-8-
iI-3g