AGENDA MEMO DATE: February 14, 2006 TO:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Office of the City Manager By: Linda Haines, Development Services Director
SUBJECT:
A DOWNEY MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE IX, CHAPTER 1, AS IT RELATES TO THE BULK AND MASSING OF SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONES (CODE AMENDMENT 05-01) AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RECOMMENDATION That the City Council introduce the following titled Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY REVISING THE DOWNEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATING TO BUILDING BULK AND MASSING OF DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONES (CODE AMENDMENT 05-01) AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION REPORT SUMMARY Last year, the City Council hired a consultant, Mark Brodeur of Downtown Solutions, to study the City’s development standards for detached single-family dwellings in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and R-2 (Two-Family Residential) zones. The Council’s action was in response to the concerns expressed by Downey residents and developers who have expressed opinions strongly on both sides of the issue of “mansionization”. After conducting two public hearings to receive public input on Mr. Brodeur’s recommendations, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council revise the Downey Municipal Code to add standards relating to the bulk and mass of single-family homes. This report addresses Mr. Brodeur’s recommendations which the Planning Commission determined best reflect the goals and objectives of the study. DISCUSSION “Mansionization,” or the practice of replacing modest one-story homes with much larger twostory homes, has been the major issue in the City for more than a year. The City Council and Planning Commission have held many public hearings on this issue. In response to numerous diverging comments received, the City Council hired Mark Brodeur of Downtown Solutions, to study the City’s development standards for detached single-family dwellings in the R-1 (SingleFamily Residential) and R-2 (Two-Family Residential) zones and to recommend changes to the Zoning Code. CITY OF DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA
For three months, Mr. Brodeur worked with City officials to address the primary concerns of mansionization: opponents feel that the bulk and mass of new residential developments is inconsistent with the style and character of existing residential neighborhoods, while proponents feel that change is inevitable and the new homes dramatically increase property values for everyone. Mr. Brodeur conducted two public meetings to receive citizen input and met with City staff to develop revised development standards. He then prepared his recommended changes to the R-1 and R-2 development standards, which address the bulk and mass issues. The Planning Commission held public hearings on January 5 and January 18, 2006, to consider Mr. Brodeur’s proposal. The attached memorandum outlines Mr. Brodeur’s approach for revising the development standards. His recommended changes are summarized as follows: 1.
Establish a dual floor area ratio (FAR) that allows a single-family home to have a greater FAR than a comparable two-story home.
2.
Remove the maximum lot coverage requirement from the Zoning Code.
3.
Restrict the second floor area to a percentage of the first floor area and limit how much of the second floor can be situated in the front half of the first floor footprint.
4.
Reduce the maximum height of homes to 28 feet in the R-1 5,000 through R-1 8,500 zones.
5.
Limit the height of covered porches, covered entryways, and porte-cocheres, and the distance between the ceiling of the porch roof or entryway cover and the floor below.
6.
Prohibit all architectural features, except eaves, from encroaching into the side yard setbacks.
7.
Maintain the current minimum setbacks for single-story homes, while increasing the side yard setback for new two-story homes.
8.
Increase the side yard setback on lots over 15,000 square feet.
9.
Require specific architectural design standards to protect privacy among neighbors.
In addition to the abovementioned recommended revisions to the Zoning Code, Mr. Brodeur also suggested that the City should consider revising the Code to address the following: 1.
Require a third covered parking space for homes with more than three bedrooms, limiting the length of curb cuts for driveways, and barring on-street parking during early morning hours.
2.
Prohibiting construction of new two-story homes when at least eighty percent (80 %) of new homes are single story.
3.
Exempt basements from floor area ratio requirements.
-2-
During the January 5, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, staff expressed that Mr. Brodeur’s “recommended” and “suggested” changes to the City’s development standards address the primary concern of mansionization by providing tangible solutions to the community’s issues regarding the bulk and mass of new residential developments. He provides a means to preserve the style and character of existing residential neighborhoods and makes it possible for new residential development to continue. Mr. Brodeur’s proposal encourages single-story development and new concepts and proposals for residential design, such as tandem parking and basements, which are not prominent in Downey. However, staff felt that the Planning Commission should consider the following aspects of the proposed changes before making its recommendation to the City Council: 1.
Mr. Brodeur recommends altering the rear yard setback for single-family homes on lots under 15,000 square feet, by reducing the setback from 20 feet to 8 feet. The benefit of this proposal is that it facilitates a .60 floor area ratio for single story dwellings, which would encourage this type of development. However, the downside to this proposed change is a significant loss of private open space in rear yard areas.
2.
The plan proposes tandem parking garages on all lots. The City has various residential situations to consider when applying this standard (conforming lots, narrow lots, and homes with one-car garages) and staff is concerned that a plan could result in an undesirable tandem parking layout. Therefore, staff supports specific guidelines for tandem parking in residential areas. The regulations should maintain the interior garage dimensions for a two-car garage (18 feet wide and 19 feet deep) and allow tandem parking in conjunction with that standard.
3.
Among the architectural design standards designed to maintain privacy between neighbors is a regulation that restricts the minimum height of window sills on second floors, to five feet above the finished floor. In addition to this statement, the regulation should include wording which states that the height of the window sill shall satisfy the Building Code requirements.
4.
Staff supports the idea of requiring more than two covered parking spaces for homes with more than three bedrooms; however, this criterion can be avoided if the applicant defines a potential bedroom space as something else ( a den or a bonus room for example). An alternate standard could base additional parking requirements on the total floor area of the residence (such as one covered parking space per 1,000 square feet of habitable floor area.
5.
Limiting curb cuts for all residential driveways to 12 feet may not be feasible. The minimum driveway width is 10 feet; that standard coupled with the width of the driveway apron will exceed 12 feet.
6.
While the Planning Commission may support preserving the character of neighborhoods by prohibiting construction of new two-story homes when at least 80 % of the surrounding neighborhood is one story, verifying that this standard is being met may become a tedious step in the plan review process.
-3-
7.
Basements must meet the Downey Municipal Code definition of a basement to be exempt from the requirement limiting floor area ratio. Table 1 (Summary of Recommended Single-Family Residential Development Standards) should reflect that basements shall be exempt from the requirements limiting floor area ratio. Staff prefers a clear definition of what a basement can be used for.
8.
Obviously, the changes proposed by Mr. Brodeur will create nonconforming structures throughout the City. The Planning Commission and City Council must be aware of the regulatory problems these changes will cause, and that it will be necessary to amend the nonconforming uses section of the Zoning Code to address those issues.
9.
The new Ordinance will go into effect upon its adoption, at the second reading.
10.
The proposed changes to the development standards may result in unique designs for second-story developments. Perhaps these proposals should be subject to review by the Design Review Board. This step would allow the professional architect to evaluate these proposals with a trained eye and perhaps maintain the character of neighborhoods.
The following persons spoke regarding the proposed recommendations during the public hearings: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Fred Mayfield, 6th Street Marta Bechtel, Cherokee Drive Elsa Van Lueven, Lesterford Avenue George Redfox.– Chaney Avenue Carl Chavez, Phlox Street Isabel Keifer, Haledon Avenue Jim Roberts, Pangborn Brian Hayman, Horton Avenue Harold Tseklenis, 8th Street Armando Sivilla, Meldar Avenue Tony Aboud, Otto Street Greg Caldwell, Haledon Street Rich LaPorte, Lesterford Avenue Marina Martin, Pomering Road Art Abarca, Ravillier Drive Dee Dee Young, 6th Street
Their reactions to Mr. Brodeur’s proposed changes and other comments are summarized as follows: 1. 2.
The overnight parking restriction should be enforced Limit the size of the homes because many people can live in these large homes with a corresponding number of vehicles per home -4-
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Use architectural design guidelines to address bulk and mass issues The dual FAR is too restrictive Trend toward new and larger homes has benefited everyone Proposed changes penalize people with small lots The minimum FAR should be .65 (Others quoted FAR as high as .70) The new large homes are not affordable Too many large homes are being built The new homes replaced the worst homes in the neighborhood Garage standards are not practical or reasonable Remove the area of the garage from the FAR formula To address boxy effect and privacy concerns, set the second story 6 to 7 feet back from the side walls Make the new rules agreeable to everyone Encourage good design Reduce the roof height to 26 feet Create a committee to address design issues and develop design guidelines The 28 foot height restriction is too restrictive There is no need to restrict chimneys from encroaching into side yards No less than fifteen foot rear yards Require additional covered parking space for the fifth bedroom No encroachment into the side yards
After receiving public testimonies and input from staff, the Planning Commission determined that the following items best reflect the goals and objectives of the study and recommends that they be included in a code amendment to address the issues of mansionization: 1.
Establish a dual floor area ratio (FAR) that allows a single-story home to have a greater FAR than a comparable two-story home.
2.
Remove the maximum lot coverage requirement from the Zoning Code.
3.
Reduce the maximum height of homes to 28 feet in the R-1 5,000 through R-1 8,500 zones.
4.
Prohibit all architectural features, except eaves, from encroaching into the side yard setbacks.
5.
Maintain the current minimum setbacks for single-story homes, while increasing the side yard setback for new two-story homes.
6.
Increase the side yard setback on lots over 15,000 square feet.
7.
Require a third covered parking space, within a garage, for homes with more than four bedrooms and require an additional covered parking space for each set of two additional bedrooms.
-5-
8.
Basements and garages shall be exempted from the floor area ratio requirements; however, only 200 square feet per required automobile storage space within a garage will be exempt from the FAR requirements.
In addition to the these recommendations, the Planning Commission favors a ten (10) foot rear yards setback rather than the minimum eight (8) foot minimum setback that Mr. Brodeur advocates for single-story dwellings. His recommendation makes it possible to achieve the .60 FAR for one story dwellings. Also, no accessory structures, such as air conditioning units, fireplace chimneys, nor water heaters, should be permitted within the reduced rear yard area. Building eaves would be exempt. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, staff prepared a Negative Declaration to address the impacts from the proposed code amendment, finding it could not have a significant effect on the environment. Attachments: Exhibit 1 – Current Development Standards, Lot Coverage Exhibit 2 – Recommended Change: Dual FAR Exhibit 3 – Recommended Change: Dual FAR (2-story) City Council Ordinance Negative Declaration Memorandum from Mark Brodeur, Consultant – Recommended Zoning Code Amendments Planning Commission Minutes, January 18, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes, January 5, 2006
-6-
50’
20’
42’
60’
100’
Current Development Standards Lot Coverage In the R-1 5,000 Zone, the maximum allowable lot coverage is 50% of the lot area. A 5,000 square foot lot yields 2,500 square feet of buildable area. A one story home could be 2,400 square feet (including a 400 square foot garage), while a twostory home could be 5,000 square feet (including a 400 square foot garage).
Garage
20’
There is no calculation for building above the first floor! Buildable Area = 2,520 sq. ft. (42’ x 60’)
4’
R-1 5,000 Lot
4’
50’ 42’
8’ Rear Yard Area
Recommended Change: Dual FAR 100’
72’
In the R-1 5,000 Zone, the maximum Floor Area Ratio for a one-story home is 60% of the lot area. Max Building Floor Area = 5,000 x .60 or 3,000 square feet, plus 400 sq ft for a two car garage.
Garage
Buildable Area = 3,024 sq. ft. (42’ x 72’)
20’
4’
R-1 5,000 Lot
4’
Because of the required setbacks, the one story house, including garage, would be limited to 3,024 sq. ft. (42’ x 72’)
50’
Recommended Change: Dual FAR 41’ In the R-1 5,000 Zone, the maximum Floor Area Ratio for a two-story home is 52%.
40’ 100’
39’
Max Building Floor Area = 5,000 x .52 or 2,600 square feet (total 1st floor and 2nd floor, plus 400 sq. ft. for a two car garage) Example: 1,560 sq. ft. 1st floor (40’ x 39’) + 1,040 sq. ft. 2nd Floor (34.6’ x 29’) 2,600 Total Building Floor Area
1st Floor
20’
5’
R-1 5,000 Lot
5’
2nd Floor (Area above 1st Floor)
ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY REVISING THE DOWNEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATING TO BUILDING BULK AND MASSING OF DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONES (CODE AMENDMENT 05-01) AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine and declare that: A.
The City Council of the City of Downey hired a consultant, Mark Brodeur of Downtown Solutions, to develop standards relating to the “bulk and massing” of single family homes; and
B.
The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on January 5, 2006 and January 18, 2006, and after fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing, adopted Resolution No. ____, recommending approval to the City Council.
C.
The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 14, 2006.
SECTION 2. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said public hearings, City Council further finds, determines and declares that: A.
The requested amendments do not negatively affect the health, safety and general welfare of the City of Downey;
B.
The requested amendments are desirable for the development of the community, in harmony with the policies and objectives of the General Plan and Downey Municipal Code, and will implement the goals and objectives of these plans; and
C.
An initial study of the environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration were prepared and noticed as required by the California Environmental Quality Act with comments requested to be received no later than February 13, 2006, finding there would be no significant environmental impacts.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves Code Amendment No. 05-01, to amend Article IX, Chapter 1, by adding Section 9104.99 to read as follows, with the new text bolded and underlined: SECTION 9104.99. FLOOR AREA RATIO. Floor area ratio shall mean the total gross floor area of building(s) on a lot divided by the gross floor area of the lot, after any dedications by the City of utilities. (1.) Basements and garages are exempted from the requirements limiting the floor area ratio. (i)
Only 200 square feet per required automobile storage space within a garage will be exempt from the FAR requirements.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves Code Amendment No. 05-01, to amend Article IX, Chapter 1, by amending Section 9110.12 (c)(1)(i) to read as follows, with the new text bolded and underlined: (i). Minimum Setbacks. Any building or structure shall be setback a minimum of twenty feet (20’), except for the application of prevailing setbacks, measured from the front property line (street line). The minimum setback for two-story homes on lots 15,000 square feet and larger, shall be twenty-five feet (25’). SECTION 5. The City Council hereby approves Code Amendment No. 05-01, to amend Article IX, Chapter 1, by amending Section 9110.12 (d) (1) to read as follows, with the new text bolded and underlined: SECTION 9110.12 (D) HEIGHT. The maximum height of any building in the R-1 5,000, R-1 6,000, R-1 7,500 and R-1 8,500 zones shall not exceed two (2) stories or thirty (30) twenty-eight feet (28’), whichever is less. The maximum height of any building in the R-1 10,000 zone shall not exceed two (2) stories or thirty (30) feet in height, whichever is less. (1.) The height of porch roofs, covered entryways and portecocheres shall not exceed fourteen feet (14’) from the street curb. The distance between the ceiling of the porch roof, entryway cover, or porte-cochere and the floor below shall not exceed twelve feet (12’) in all R-1 zones. SECTION 6. The City Council hereby approves Code Amendment No. 05-01, to amend Article IX, Chapter 1, by amending Section 9110.12 (f) (1) to read as follows, with the new text bolded and underlined: (f) Permitted Coverage. The maximum coverage of all structures in the R-1 zone shall be not more than fifty percent (50%) of the total lot area (see Section 9132 of this Chapter). (f) Floor Area Ratio. The maximum floor area ratio for two-story homes in the R-1 5,000, R-1 6,000, R-1 7,500 and R-1 8,500 zones shall be .052. The maximum floor area ratio for two-story homes in the R-1 10,000 zone shall be 0.54. (1.) The maximum floor area ratio for single story homes shall be 0.60. (3.) (2.) The maximum allowable second floor area shall not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the first floor area in the R-1 5,000, R-1 6,000, R-1 7,500 and R-1 8,500 zones. SECTION 7. The City Council hereby approves Code Amendment No. 05-01, to amend Article IX, Chapter 1, by amending Section 9110.12 (f)(2)to read as follows, with the new text bolded and underlined:
(2) Side Yard Setbacks.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Interior Side Yards. A minimum setback of four feet (4’) for single-story homes. Lots having less than fifty feet (50’) in width shall comply with Section 9138.06 of this Chapter; The minimum side yard setback for two-story homes shall be five feet (5’), measured from the side lot line of the corner lot. The use of the area between the side lot line to the building line shall be in accordance with Section 9110.12(c)(1)(iii); The minimum side yard setback for two-story homes on lost that are 15,000 square feet and greater, shall be ten feet (10’). Corner-side street yards. Any building or structure shall be setback a minimum of ten feet (10’), measured from the side lot line of the corner lot. The use of the area between the side lot line to the building line shall be in accordance with Section 9110.12 (c)(1)9iii).
SECTION 8. The City Council hereby approves Code Amendment No. 05-01, to amend Article IX, Chapter 1, by amending Section 9110.12.3 to read as follows, with the new text bolded and underlined: (3). Rear Yard Setbacks. A minimum setback of twenty feet (20’). Subject to minor variance approval, the rear yard on corner lots may be reduced to not less than four feet (4’) abutting a street side yard setback line provided the structure does not reduce the required rear yard area by more than fifty percent (50%) and (i). Rear setbacks for single-story homes on lots under 15,000 square feet can be reduced from twenty feet (20’) to eight feet (8’), with the approval of the City Planner.
SECTION 9. The City Council hereby approves Code Amendment No. 05-01, to amend Article IX, Chapter 1, by amending Section 9110.12 by adding the following table after Section 9110.12.3:
Table 1: Single Family Residential Development Standards
R-1 District R-1 5000 R1 6000 R-1 7500 R1 8500 R-1 10,000
Front/Side/Rear Setbacks (1 story)
Front/Side/Rear Setbacks (2story)
Maximum FAR (1-story)
Maximum FAR (2-story)
Maximum Building Height
Maximum 2nd Floor/1st Floor*
20'/4'/20'**
20'/5'/20'**
.60 FAR
.52 FAR
28'
80%
20'/4'/20'**
20'/5'/20'**
.60 FAR
.52 FAR
28'
80%
20'/4'/20'**
20'/5'/20'**
.60 FAR
.54 FAR
30'
90%
15000+ sq. ft. lot
20'/10'/20' 20'/10'/25' .60 FAR .54 FAR 30' 90% *No more than half (50%) of the second floor area shall be situated over the front half of the first floor footprint of the dwelling. ** Existing single-story homes and lots less than 50 feet in width still abide by current side setback requirement; Rear setbacks for single-family can be reduced to 8 feet for lots under 15,000 square feet and above contingent on approval by the Planning Director.
SECTION 10. The City Council hereby approves Code Amendment No. 05-01, to amend Article IX, Chapter 1, by amending Section 9140.18 to read as follows, with the new text bolded and underlined: (a). Eaves may extend twelve inches (12”) into a required yard. (b). Architectural features other than eaves, such as chimneys, cornices, outdoor canopies, and stairways not extend or project into the required side-yard setback in any R-1 zones. (c). Chimneys, cornices, canopies, and other similar architectural features not providing additional floor space within the building may extend or project into the required yard not more than two feet (2’). (d). Outside stairways or landing places, if unroofed and unenclosed, may extend into a required side yard for distance of not to exceed two feet (2’) and/or into the required rear yard a distance of not to exceed five feet (5’). Unenclosed porches not covered by a roof or canopy, which do not extend above the level of the first floor of the building, may extend or project into the required front or rear yard not more than six feet (6’) and into the side yard not more than two feet (2’). In no event shall the width of the side yard be reduced to less than two feet (2’). (e). Encroachments into required distances between buildings shall be permitted as specified for encroachments into side yards in Subsections (c) and (d) of this section. (Added by Ord. 536, adopted 12-13-77). SECTION 11. The City Council hereby approves Code Amendment No. 05-01, to amend Article IX, Chapter 1, by amending Section 9150.08 (d) to read as follows, with the new text bolded and underlined: (d) R-1 and R-2 Zone Design Standards (1). The minimum required dimension of a parking space shall be nine feet (9’) wide by nineteen feet (19’) in depth; with a two-car garage or carport having a minimum interior measurement of eighteen feet (18’) wide and nineteen feet (19’) in depth. (2). Driveways to required garages or carports having a setback from the street property line greater than thirty feet (30’) shall have a minimum width of ten feet
(10’) and a maximum width of twelve feet (12’) in the front yard or corner side yard setback area. (i). The above-mentioned standard may be applied when the required garage or carport spaces are more than thirty feet (30’) from the property line only in those areas where a prevailing setback greater than thirty feet (30’) has been established, and it can be shown that the driveway will fit the character of the neighborhood. (3). Where required garage or carport spaces are closer than thirty feet (30’) to the property line, the maximum width of a driveway shall not exceed the total width of the opening of a two-car carport or garage door or a three-car carport or garage by more than two feet (2’), but in no event shall the maximum width exceed thirty feet (30’) at the front property line in the R-1 or R-2 Zone. (See Subsection (7) of this Section, Circular Driveways.) (4). In the R-1 Zone, driveways to existing one-car garages not exceeding fifteen feet (15’), established by legal building permit or existing prior to 1972, may remain as long as the driveway is not altered, replaced, or modified, except for maintenance and repairs as specified in Section 9154.26 (a), Repairs and Maintenance. (5). In the R-2 Zone, not more than two (2) parking stalls shall be permitted which open onto the front setback area. (6). A driveway that serves as required access to a garage or carport this is not perpendicular to the front property line, or side property line in the case of a corner lot, shall not exceed twelve feet (12’) in width at the property line. (7). Not more than one driveway shall be permitted for each lot or parcel of land having a street frontage of less than seventy feet (70’). On properties which are permitted to have two (2) driveway openings, both the primary and secondary driveway openings shall serve the same driveway, and such secondary driveway shall not exceed ten feet (10’) in width in the setback area. The space between driveways on the same lot shall be at least twenty-four feet (24’) at the street property line. That portion of the connecting driveway parallel to the street property line shall have a setback of twenty feet (20’). See Section 9150.16 (f) (Miscellaneous Requirements, Prohibited Parking) of this chapter. (8). Widths of a driveway, or the total width of all driveways where more than one is permitted, shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the width of the lot at the street property line, except for those properties that have street frontages less than fifty feet (50’) wide. A lot or parcel having a frontage less than fifty feet (50’) at the street property line shall not have a driveway exceeding the width of a two (2) car garage or carport opening. In no event shall the driveway width exceed eighteen feet (18 ’) at the street property line. (9). In the Second Unit Development Areas, a suitable turnaround area and an unobstructed paved driveway not less than ten feet (10’) in width shall be provided on the lot in order that all vehicles can enter the street in a forward manner. (10). Homes containing more than four (4) bedrooms shall have a third covered parking space within an enclosed garage. Each two (2) additional
bedrooms require an additional covered parking space within an enclosed garage. SECTION 12. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2 of this Ordinance, the City Council of the City of Downey hereby approves an amendment to the Downey Municipal Code, as described in Code Amendment 05-01.
SECTION 13. The City Council does hereby further find, determine and declare that: A.
An Initial Study (IS) and Negative Declaration (ND) of Environmental Impact were prepared for Code Amendment N0. 05-01, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), state CEQA Guidelines, and City of Downey’s Procedures for Implementing CEQA.
B.
The Initial Study and Negative Declaration were made available to the public for review and comment from January 25, 2006 to and including February 13, 2006.
C.
A public hearing was held by the City Council of the City of Downey on February 14, 2006, at which time evidence was heard on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration. At the hearing, the Planning Commission fully reviewed and carefully considered them, together with any comments received during the public review period.
In view of the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Downey adopts the proposed Negative Declaration prepared for Code Amendment N0. 05-01, along with its findings and conclusions.
SECTION 14: The effective date of this Code Amendment shall be upon its adoption.
SECTION 15: The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
day of
, 2006.
Meredith Perkins, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss: CITY OF DOWNEY )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance No. was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Downey held on the day of , 2006, and adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Downey held on the day of , 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Council Members: Council Member: Council Member: Council Member:
I FURTHER CERTIFY that a Summary of the foregoing Ordinance No., was published in the Press-Telegram, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Downey, on , 2006 (after introduction), and on , 2006 (after adoption, including the vote thereon). It was also posted in the regular posting places in the City of Downey on the same dates.
KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT/ NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT This serves as the City of Downey’s Notice of Intention to adopt an Initial Study/ Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Code Amendment No. 05-01. The Downey Planning Division will receive comments on this draft environmental document from January 25, 2006 to February 13, 2006. The Downey City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing to consider the proposed project on February 14, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Downey City Hall, 11111 Brookshire Avenue, City of Downey, California. Project Title:
Code Amendment No. 05-01
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Downey 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Mark Sellheim, Principal Planner (562) 904-7154
Project Location:
City-wide, specifically the Single-Family Residential Zone (R-1), the Two-Family Residential Zone (R-2) and the Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential Zone (R-3).
Project Sponsor(s) Name and Address:
City of Downey 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241
Project Description
An amendment to Downey Municipal Code, Article IX, Chapter 1 related to sections in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones pertaining to building bulk and massing.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVE THAT the City of Downey proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the above-cited project. Such Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is based on the findings that the project has no potential significant adverse impacts and therefore requires no mitigation measures. The reasons to support such a finding are documented by an Initial Study prepared by the City of Downey. Copies of the Initial Study and the proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact may be obtained from: Mark Sellheim, Principal Planner City of Downey City Hall, Planning Division 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241 In accordance with the State Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), any comments concerning the findings of the proposed Initial Study/ Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact must be received by the City of Downey no later than 5:30 p.m., February 13, 2006 in order to be considered by the Downey City Council’s final determination on the project. Please send your comments to the address above.
Mark Sellheim Mark Sellheim
January, 2006 Date
CITY OF DOWNEY CEQA INITIAL STUDY ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Principal Planner
CEQA INITIAL STUDY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1
Project Title:
Zone Text Amendment to add development standards relating to building bulk and massing for detached single-family residences in the Single-Family Residential zone (R-1), Two Family Residential (R-2) and Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential Zone (R-3).
1.2
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Downey 11111 Brookshire Avenue Downey, CA 90241
1.3
Contact person and phone number:
Mark Sellheim, Principal Planner (562) 904-7154
1.4
Project Location:
City wide, within R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones
1.5
Project Sponsor’s name and address:
City of Downey
1.6
General Plan Designation:
N/A
1.7
Zoning
N/A
1.8
Description of Environmental Document and Project: The proposed code amendment revises applicable sections of the Downey Municipal Code to better regulate and control building massing and bulk of two-story single-family residences. The Downey Municipal Code, as presently written, addresses building massing and bulk of singlefamily residences by regulating setback areas, lot coverage percentages and building heights. The proposed code amendment revises Section Nos. 9110, 9112 and 9114 of the Municipal Code and specifically will apply to those residential zones that permit single-family dwellings, including the R-1 (Single-Family Residential Zone); R-2 (Two-Family Residential Zone); and R-3 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential Zone) districts. The following provisions are proposed to be inserted into the foregoing sections in order to further control bulk and mass. •
•
Establishing a dual floor area ratio (FAR) that allows a single-story residence to have a greater FAR than a comparable two-story home. In addition, the proposed code revision suggests removing the lot coverage requirement from the applicable code sections since FAR is a more exact and more comprehensive tool for regulating bulk and the size of structures. Restricting second floor area to a percentage of the first floor area and limiting how much second floor area can be situated in the front half of the first floor footprint.
CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 18
JANUARY 2006
CITY OF DOWNEY CEQA INITIAL STUDY ZONING CODE AMENDMENT • • • • • • • • • 1.9
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Reducing the maximum height of homes to 28 feet in the R-1 5,000 through R-1,8,500 sub-zones. Limiting the height of porch roofs, covered entryways, and porte-cocheres and the distance between the ceiling of the porch roof or entryway cover and the floor below. Prohibiting all architectural features, except eaves (12 inches maximum) from encroaching into side yard setbacks. Maintaining current minimum setbacks for single-story residences while increasing the side setbacks for new, two-story homes. Increasing the size of setbacks for homes on lots over 15,000 square feet. Protecting privacy among neighbors by requiring specific architectural design standards. Requiring a third garage for homes with more than three bedrooms. Prohibiting construction of new, two-story homes when at least eighty percent of nearby homes are single-story. Excluding basements from floor area ratio requirements.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project will affect properties located in the City of Downey, California. Downey is 12.8 square miles and its topography is relatively level. The City is located in the southeastern part of Los Angeles County, about 12 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. It is bounded by: the Rio Hondo River on the west; Telegraph Road on the north; the San Gabriel River on the east; and Gardendale Street and Foster Road on the south. Cities bordering Downey include: Pico Rivera on the north and Santa Fe Springs on the northeast, Norwalk on the east, Bellflower and Paramount on the south, South Gate on the southwest and west and Commerce on the northwest. The City of Downey is provided regional access by four interstate highways: Interstate 605 (San Gabriel River) Freeway, stretching in a north/south alignment, along the east border of the city; Interstate 105 (Glenn Anderson) Freeway, stretching in an east/west alignment, along the south border of the city; Interstate 5 (Santa Ana) Freeway, stretching in a northwest/southeast alignment, along the north border of the city; and Interstate 710 (Long Beach) Freeway, stretching in a north-south alignment and located approximately one mile to the west of the western border of the city. The proposed code amendment will apply City-wide, within the R-1 (Single-Family Residential Zone); R-2 (Two-Family Residential Zone); and R-3 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential Zone) districts.
1.10
Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) None
CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 19
JANUARY 2006
CITY OF DOWNEY CEQA INITIAL STUDY ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
CITY OF DOWNEY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
PAGE 20
JANUARY 2006
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ISSUES: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. F F F F F F F F F
F
Aesthetics
F
Agriculture Resources
F
Air Quality
F
Biological Resources
F
Cultural Resources
F
Geology and Soils
F
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
F
Hydrology & Water Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities & Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: J
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
F
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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
F
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
F
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at lease one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated”. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
F
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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signature:
_______________________________________ Mark Sellheim Principal Planner
Date:
Potentially Significant Impact - EIR Analysis Is required
CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 21
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
JANUARY 2006
No Impact
Potentially Significant Impact - EIR Analysis Is required
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
F F
F F
F F
J J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
2.
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: F F F J a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? F F F J b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson act contract? F F F J c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3.
a. b. c.
d. e.
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollutio control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: F F F J Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? F F F J Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? F F F J Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? F F F J Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? F F F J Create objectionable odors?
4. a.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c.
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 22
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
JANUARY 2006
Potentially Significant Impact - EIR Analysis Is required
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines 5064.85? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 5064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? e. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4) Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil 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? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 23
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F F F F F
F F F F F
F F F F F
J J J J J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
JANUARY 2006
Potentially Significant Impact - EIR Analysis Is required
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 9. a.
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Physically divide an established community? CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 24
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F F
F F
F F
J J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
JANUARY 2006
Potentially Significant Impact - EIR Analysis Is required
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. 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? 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 public services: F F F J 1) Fire protection? F F F J 2) Police protection? F F F J 3) Schools? F F F J 4) Parks? F F F J 5) Other public facilities? CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 25
JANUARY 2006
Potentially Significant Impact - EIR Analysis Is required
14. RECREATION. a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? c. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 26
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F F F
F F F
F F F
J J J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
JANUARY 2006
Potentially Significant Impact - EIR Analysis Is required
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
related to solid waste? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining 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? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
F
F
F
J
3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts which may result from the proposed project. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist (Section 2) are stated and answers are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. They outline the following issues: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning
10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
The analysis considers the project’s short-term impacts (construction-related), and its operational or dayto-day impacts. For each question, there are four possible responses. They include: 1. No Impact. Future development arising from the project’s implementation will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment and no additional analysis is required.
CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 27
JANUARY 2006
2. Less Than Significant Impact. The development associated with project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment; these impacts, however, will be less than the levels or thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required. 3. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which will have a significant effect on the environment; however, mitigation measures will be effective in reducing the impacts to levels that are less than significant. 4. Potentially Significant Impact. Future implementation will have impacts that are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 28
JANUARY 2006
The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study. Explanations are provided for each item. 3.1
AESTHETICS. (a)-(d) NO IMPACT The proposed code amendment revises certain sections of the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvement or construction. Further, there is no impact to scenic vistas/resources, historic buildings or new sources of light and glare. The proposed amendment will be considered a visual benefit to the city.
3.2
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. (a)-(c) NO IMPACT (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) The proposed code amendment pertains to residential zoned properties and there are no agricultural zones in the City, no Williamson Act Contract and no opportunity to convert to farmland.
3.3
AIR QUALITY. (a)-(e) NO IMPACT The proposed code amendment revises certain sections of the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvement or construction. Therefore, there is no opportunity to conflict with the Air Quality Management District Plan; Air Quality Standards; cumulatively increase any air pollutants; will not expose any receptors to pollutant concentration; and no opportunity to create any objectionable odors.
3.4
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. (a)-(f) NO IMPACT The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no opportunity to affect biological resource, including candidate, sensitive or special status species of the City, California Department of Fish and game, or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Further, there is no opportunity to affect any habitat conservation plan; natural community plan; riparian habitat; sensitive natural community; wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; movement of any native resident/migratory fish/wildlife species or established native resident/migratory wildlife corridor or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; and there is no conflict with any City policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
3.5
CULTURAL RESOURCES (a)-(d) NO IMPACT The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no opportunity to affect any historical resource; archaeological resource; paleontological resource; and human remains.
3.6
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. (a)-(e) NO IMPACT Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1)
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 29
JANUARY 2006
2)
3)
4)
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42). No Impact. There are no known earthquake faults that are located through the City of Downey. Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no development being proposed that would be affected by any ground shaking. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no development being proposed that would be affected by any liquefaction. Landslides? No Impact. Landslides are not considered a potential hazard since Downey has a relatively flat topography with no steep hills or slopes.
The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no development being proposed that would result in soil erosion or loss of top soil; be affected by potential unstable soils; be affected by potential expansive soils; or require the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal. 3.7
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. (a)-(h) NO IMPACT The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no development being proposed that would create any potential health hazard; no proposed structure to create a potential health hazard or risk of accidents; no opportunity for any school to be affected by the proposed code amendment; no development will be located within a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials; no airports will be affected; will not interfere with adopted emergency responses/evacuation plans; and no development will be affected by any wildland fire.
3.8
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: (a)-(j) NO IMPACT The proposed amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no opportunity to conflict with any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; deplete ground water supplies or interfere with recharge; affect any drainage pattern; affect runoff to exceed the capacity of the drainage system; any water quality standards/waste discharge requirement; no housing is located within a 100-year flood hazard area or expose people or structures to potential flood hazard; and the geographical location of the city makes the occurrence of seiches, tsunamis or mudflows unlikely.
3.9
LAND USE AND PLANNING. (a)-(c) NO IMPACT The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no development being proposed that would divide any established community; conflict with any land use regulation, plan or policy; or any adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
3.10
MINERAL RESOURCES. (a)-(b) NO IMPACT The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no development being proposed that would affect any mineral resource or any mineral recovery site.
3.11
NOISE. (a)-(f) NO IMPACT
CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 30
JANUARY 2006
The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no development being proposed that would result in noise levels that exceed the standards of the City or other appropriate agencies; expose people to excessive ground bourne vibration or noise levels; exceed the standards of the city or permanently increase ambient noise levels; construction noise levels that exceed the standards of the City; generate noise levels that conflict with any airport land use plan or any private air ship. 3.12
POPULATION AND HOUSING: (a)-(c) NO IMPACT The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no development being proposed that would induce substantial population growth; displace any existing housing or people.
3.13
PUBLIC SERIVCES: NO IMPACT
(a)
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associates with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 public services: 1) Fire Protection? No Impact. The Downey Fire Department provides fire and paramedic services for the City. The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no development being proposed that would burden fire protection services of the City. 2) Police? No Impact. The Downey Police Department provides police protection for the City. The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no development being proposed that would burden police protection services of the City. 3) Schools? No Impact. The Downey Unified School District provides public school service for the City. The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no development being proposed that would burden the school district. 4) Parks? No Impact. The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements or construction. There is no development being proposed that would burden the park facilities and services of the City. 5) Other public facilities? No Impact. The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements or construction. There is no development being proposed that would burden the other public facilities of the City.
3.14
RECREATION (a)-(b) NO IMPACT The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no development
CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 31
JANUARY 2006
being proposed that would burden the park facilities and services of the City or require construction or expansion of existing park facilities. 3.15
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. (a)-(g) NO IMPACT The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements, or construction. There is no development being proposed that would increase traffic and create congestion; exceed the level of service of any roadway; affect air traffic patterns; increase traffic hazards; inadequate emergency access; inadequate parking capacity; or conflict with any alternative transportation policy.
3.16
UTILITIES AND SERVICE. (a)-(g) NO IMPACT The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements or construction. There is no development being proposed that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board; require construction or expansion of water or wastewater facilities; require construction or expansion of drainage facilities; impose burden on the city’s water supply/waste water provider, landfills that serve the city; or conflict with any Federal, State, County or city regulation related to solid waste.
3.17
FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. The following findings have been made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, based on the results of this environmental assessment.
(a)
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements or construction. There is no development being proposed that would impact any biological or cultural resource.
(b)
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probably future projects. No Impact. The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements or construction. There is no development being proposed that would have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
(c)
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The proposed code amendment revises sections from the Downey Municipal Code and does not propose any physical development, improvements or construction. There is no development being proposed that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 32
JANUARY 2006
CITY OF DOWNEY CEQA INITIAL STUDY ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
2.0 - CHECKLIST
Memorandum To:
Linda Haines Development Services Director City Of Downey
From: Mark Brodeur, Consultant Downtown Solutions Date: January 18, 2006 Subject: Recommended Zoning Code Amendments
Introduction Background The City of Downey is located 12 miles southeast of the Downtown Los Angeles and approximately 10 miles east of the Pacific Ocean in southeast Los Angeles County. Originally settled by former Governor and land owner John G. Downey in 1873, the area shifted from a frontier town to a bustling agricultural center to a community that integrates a mix of commercial, manufacturing, and residential uses. Downey, now home to 110,600 in a 12.5 square mile area, is bordered by the Cities of Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Commerce, Norwalk, Paramount, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, and South Gate. Downey wants to address several interconnected issues relating to residential development within the community. Recently, the community request the City find ways to lessen the impact of new development on the established character of existing neighborhoods. A primary concern in the R-1 zone is the trend of replacing or modifying modest one-story homes with much larger two-story homes that possess a mass and bulk inconsistent with nearby homes and out of proportion with the lots. This memorandum was developed through collaboration with citizens and City officials with a goal of promoting compatibility within residential areas. The following recommendations seek to shape appealing new development through revised zoning regulations and development standards. Implementation of the Development Standards This memorandum contains recommendations for changes to Downey’s existing zoning standards. Development standards are mandatory regulations that must be met by all applicable development. Each submittal will be checked to determine whether the standards have been followed during review by Development Services Department staff. Development in compliance with the standards will receive favorable comment and approval.
CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 34
JANUARY 2006
Development Services staff make decisions on new single-family homes and additions to existing single-family homes. A decision regarding the application may be appealed and set for public hearing before the Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 9162 of the Downey Zoning Code. The decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed to the City Council, also pursuant to Section 9162 of the Downey Zoning Code. The decision of the City Council is final and conclusive. No new or additional review processes are proposed. Public Involvement Process The City of Downey retained Downtown Solutions to help address community concerns regarding the compatibility of new and remodeled construction of single-family homes within existing single-family neighborhoods. Downtown Solutions was asked to develop and administer a program that would engage citizens of the City in shaping criteria for infill residential development. To date, the public involvement process has consisted of two public workshops. Multiple meetings with City staff also helped to shape the work effort. On October 20, 2005, a Visual Preference Survey (VPS) was administered to approximately 60 citizens at the first public workshop, which was held with the Planning Commission. The VPS program assessed community views on residential design and neighborhood character by allowing attendees to place green (signifying a positive opinion) or red (negative opinion) dots on photographs of local homes. Generally, residents felt that Downey was being harmed by the recent trends in new home construction. Residents were most concerned that the size of these homes is too large for Downey and the immediate neighborhood. Approximately two hundred Downey residents attended a second public workshop with the Planning Commission, which was held on November 15, 2005. This meeting was structured to: (1) educate the general public on current zoning and the problems with current zoning; (2) provide initial ideas and concepts for the development standards; and (3) offer further opportunity for extensive community input. These comments were useful in guiding and shaping the standards. Existing Residential Zoning The R-1 zone encompasses most of the single-family areas in Downey. The R-1 zone contains five subzones distinguished by the minimum lot size (5,000, 6,000, 7,500, 8,500, and 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). The City does not currently require a maximum floor area ratio (FAR). Instead, the applicable property development standards include: • • • • • •
Maximum lot coverage: 50% Maximum height: Two stories or 30 feet, whichever is less Front yard setback: 20 feet or prevailing Interior side yard: 4 feet Corner side street yard setback: 10 feet or prevailing Rear yard setback: 20 feet
Definition of Floor Area Ratio CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 35
JANUARY 2006
Floor area ratio shall mean the total gross floor area of building(s) on a lot divided by the gross area of the lot, after any dedications required by the City or utilities.
Single-Family Residential Development Standards The following section addresses several important design issues by providing recommended and suggested changes to the current zoning requirements contained in the Downey Municipal Code. A summary of recommended single-family residential development standards is included in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of Recommended Single-Family Residential Development Standards R-1 District
R-1 5000 R-1 6000 R-1 7500 R-1 8500 R-1 10000 15,000+ sq. ft. lot
Front/ Side/Rear Setbacks (1-Story) 20’/4’/ 20’** 20’/4’/ 20’** 20’/4’/ 20’** 20’/10’/ 20’
Front/ Side/Rear Setbacks (2-Story) 20’/5’/ 20’** 20’/5’/ 20’** 20’/5’/ 20’** 25’/10’/ 25’
Max. FAR (1-Story)
Max. FAR (2-Story)
Max. Building Height
.60 FAR
.52 FAR
28’
Max. 2nd Floor/1st Floor* 80%
.60 FAR
.52 FAR
28’
80%
.60 FAR
.54 FAR
30’
90%
.60 FAR
.54 FAR
30’
90%
* No more than half (50%) of the second floor area shall be situated over the front half of the first floor footprint of the dwelling. ** Existing homes and lots less than 50 feet in width still abide by current side setback requirements; Rear setbacks for single-story family can be reduced to 8 feet for lots under 15,000 square feet and 15 feet for lots 15,000 square feet and above contingent on approval by the Planning Director.
CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 36
JANUARY 2006
Recommendation Changes Establish a Dual FAR (to Encourage Single-Story Construction) The creation of a maximum FAR for single-family homes serves as a critical tool in preserving neighborhood character because FAR more accurately appraises the size, bulk, and scale of homes than any other regulatory technique. Programs 1.1.1.3 and 1.4.2.2 of the recently approved General Plan directed the City to implement an FAR or similar tool. Furthermore, revised regulations should encourage single-story homes since many traditional Downey neighborhoods are predominately single-story. The recommended FAR is based on independent review and input from the public and City officials. The maximum FAR for two-story homes in R-1 5,000 through 8,500 should be set at 0.52 while those in R-1 10,000 should be placed at 0.54 since homes on larger lots do not tend to have the same problems with neighborhood privacy and compatibility. The maximum FAR for single-story homes should be set at 0.60. For example, the difference between the largest one- and two-story homes on a 7,500 square foot lot would be 600 square feet. By establishing a maximum FAR, the maximum lot coverage requirement can be dropped from current zoning. Setbacks We recommend altering setbacks to encourage single-story construction. Rear setbacks for single-story homes on lots under 15,000 square feet can be reduced from 20 feet to 8 feet contingent on approval by the Planning Director. Side setbacks for two-story homes should be increased from 4 feet to 5 feet to provide more space between residences. The setbacks should be modified on lots 15,000 square feet and above to prevent construction of large homes too close to the street or other homes. For two-story homes, the minimum front setback should be increased from 20 to 25 feet, side setback from 4 to 10 feet, and rear setback from 20 to 25 feet. For one-story homes, the minimum front and rear setbacks should stay at 20 feet and the side setback increased from 4 to 10 feet. The rear setback can decrease from 20 to 15 feet pending approval by the Planning Director. Changes to the side setback will only apply to new construction on lots at least 50 feet wide. Existing homes and lots less than 50 feet in width will still fall under current side setback requirements. Size of Second Story During the public workshops, many citizens expressed concern about the size of second stories on new homes because a large second story can appear boxy and encroach on neighbors’ personal privacy. The best approach to controlling second story bulk is to establish the maximum area of the second story relative to the first floor area. This method is preferable to setting second floor setbacks, which tend to create second floors that are virtually identical from house to house and from neighborhood to neighborhood.
CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 37
JANUARY 2006
The recommended regulation would be that maximum allowable second floor area shall not exceed 80 percent of the first floor area in R-1 5,000 through 8,500 and 90% in R-1 10,000. No more than half (50%) of the total second floor area shall be situated in the front half of the first floor footprint. Building Height Although building height for homes in R-1 10,000 districts should remain unchanged, maximum height should be lowered to two stories or 26’, whichever is less, in R-1 5,000 through 8,500. Such an alteration acknowledges that height is a more important issue on smaller lots. Scale Of Front Entries and Porte-Cochere The Code should be changed to specify that the height of porch roofs, covered entryways, and porte-cochere shall not exceed 14 feet from the street curb. The distance between the ceiling of the porch roof, entryway cover, or porte-cochere and the floor below shall not exceed 12 feet in all R-1 zones. Side Yard Encroachment Current regulations allow a number of architectural features, including eaves, portecochere, chimneys, and outdoor stairways, to project into the side yard setbacks. These provisions should be changed to only allow eaves to project 12 inches into the side yard setback in all R-1 zones and prohibit all other encroachment by architectural features. Suggested Changes Parking Requirements Downey residents were also concerned about ensuring sufficient parking in their neighborhoods. The following changes can help accommodate parking needs: 1.
Since the number of bedrooms corresponds with the need for parking, homes containing more than four bedrooms should be required to have a third covered parking space. 2. Tandem parking garages should be permitted on all lots. Exemptions for Basements Basements should be encouraged because they provide additional storage area for residents while not impacting neighbors. Therefore, basements should be exempted from requirements limiting the floor area ratio.
CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 38
JANUARY 2006
CITY OF DOWNEY
PAGE 39
JANUARY 2006
