Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Planning commission recommends changing ‘maximum’ to ‘typical’ in FAR tables to avoid unnecessary amendments
Loading...
Summary
The Planning Commission voted 5‑0 on April 13, 2026 to recommend a city‑initiated General Plan amendment replacing the word “maximum” with “typical” in floor area ratio (FAR) tables to align policy with modern industrial building practices and avoid repeated General Plan amendments.
The Santa Fe Springs Planning Commission voted unanimously April 13 to recommend that the City Council approve a city‑initiated amendment to the 2040 General Plan that replaces the word “maximum” with “typical” in floor area ratio (FAR) entries in Land Use Table LU‑24 and LU‑25.
Planning consultant Laurel Reimer said the change is intended to resolve inconsistencies between the General Plan and current development patterns. “The general plan amendment before you tonight would be to change the word maximum within floor area or after floor area ratio to typical,” Reimer said, noting that modern warehouse and storage buildings often have FARs near 1.5 while the plan lists 1.0 for light industrial and 0.75 for industrial.
Staff told commissioners the revision would not authorize additional development on its own; existing zoning standards (height, setbacks, parking) would continue to control building scale. Reimer said the amendment qualifies for the common‑sense exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15061(b)(3) because it changes descriptive language and does not directly authorize new building activity. The item was publicly noticed on March 24, 2026 and staff reported no written correspondence prior to the hearing.
Commissioners raised only minor editorial and formatting questions — for example, punctuation consistency on LU‑24 and LU‑25 — and asked staff to make those adjustments before forwarding the item to the City Council. No members of the public spoke during the hearing.
By roll call the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 317‑2026 recommending the amendment be approved by the City Council; the motion passed 5‑0. The commission clerk recorded that a 14‑day appeal period applies. Because this is a General Plan amendment, council approval is required; staff noted the council would consider the item in a single reading and the council’s determination would be final.
