HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/1991, 4 - MINOR SUBDIVISION MS 91-025-CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE MAP CREATING TWO LOTS-WITH EXCEPTIONS TO LOT AREA, WIDTH AND DEPTH-FROM ONE LOT LOCATED BETWEEN GEORGE AND IRIS STREETS NEAR R llll�lglll�lllllll� tJ MEETING DATE:
cI o San LUIS OBISPO 40 -/?- 9�
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director e
PREPARED BY: Greg Smith, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision MS 91-025 - Consideration of Subdivision Hearing Officer's
recommendation to approve a tentative map creating two lots - with exceptions
to lot area, width and depth - from one lot located between George and his
Streets near Ruth Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution approving the tentative map for Minor Subdivision
MS 91-025, including exceptions, subject to findings and conditions.
DISCUSSION:
Background
On May 17, 1991, the Subdivision Hearing Officer considered the proposed lot split, and
recommended approval subject to the findings and conditions in the attached draft council
resolution. Minutes of the hearing are also attached.
The project consists of dividing an existing 7500 square foot lot to create two 3750 square foot
lots. Each lot would accommodate one existing two-bedroom house, and each lot would have
a 50-foot frontage on a dedicated city street.
Each lot would involve exceptions to standards in the city's subdivision regulations: 3750
square foot area where 6000 square foot area is normally required, 75 foot lot depth where 90
foot is normally required, and 50 foot lot width where 60 feet is normally required.
The Subdivision Regulations require council approval of subdivisions which involve exceptions
to subdivision standards. Since the proposed lots would have less area and less depth than
normally required, the Hearing Officer's recommendation has been forwarded to the council
for final action.
Data Summary
Address: 1239 Iris, 1234 George
Owner/Subdivider: Richard Steele
Representative: Richard Steele
Zoning: R-2
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Environmental Status: Negative declaration approved by Director.
Project Action Deadline: June 21, 1991
MS 91-M
Page 2
Site DescriRtion
The site is developed with two, two bedroom residences, one oriented toward each street. Two
paved parking spaces are provided with each residence, with driveway access to the respective
street frontages. A carport is provided with the residence oriented toward his Street; a
nonconforming garage building straddles the (existing) property line between the project site
and the adjacent lot to the northeast.
Several mature trees are located on the site. The trees are not proposed to be removed. No
other significant vegetation is located on the site.
EVALUATION
The proposed subdivision would allow each of the existing houses on the site to be owned
individually. Because the site is in an R-2 zone, zoning standards for unit density, setbacks,
coverage, parking, etc., would continue to be met after the subdivision.
Exceptions to the standards in the Subdivision Regulations may be made subject to special
findings intended to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare is protected, and to
ensure that the exception is consistent with the intent of the regulations and the General Plan.
Staff has identified a number of issues for council consideration in considering this request:
1. Consistency with General Plan and Zoning
The proposed lots are developed in accordance with current standards in the Zoning
Regulations, and consistent with the density specified in the General Plan - 12 two-bedroom
units per acre. Development would continue to be consistent after the proposed subdivision.
The current level of development is also consistent with the typical pattern of development in
the neighborhood, where modest, detached units predominate.
2. Lot Size Standards
The subdivider proposes exceptions to normal lot area, width, and depth requirements.
One purpose of the lot standards is to promote efficient subdivision layout in terms of utility
and street services. Staff believes this consideration is less important in the case of this
subdivision, since:
- Small lot or double frontage subdivisions would normally be considered inefficient, due
to the extra paving and utility infrastructure required. Because of the extent and
patterns of development in the vicinity, it is unlikely that there will be any changes to
those systems in this neighborhood for the foreseeable future.
- Because of the R-2 zoning on this lot, each of the small lots could support a two-
bedroom unit, required parking, and appropriate open space.
3. Cumulative Effects
As noted in more detail in the initial environmental study, there have been eight similar lot
splits in the neighborhood which pre-date current subdivision standards. There may also be
'C�_
MS 91-025
Page 3
as many as two dozen similar projects city-wide in the future, if the current request were to
serve as a precedent.
It is difficult to predict what the cumulative effects of such requests would be, but staff believes
that there would be a shift in ownership versus rental housing. New opportunities would be
created for up to several dozen owner-occupied, two-bedroom houses. The price of such units
is difficult to predict, but would likely be slightly higher than that of a similarly sized
condominium unit, and slightly lower than that of a similar house on a larger lot.
Opportunities for rental housing units would decrease, to the extent that ownership
opportunities increased. Since rental housing units are affordable to a greater number of
households than are owner-occupied units, other factors being equal, the net result would be
a decrease in the number of households which could afford to live in the city.
The Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan encourage provision of both
ownership and rental housing units in all price ranges; neither is given a priority over the other.
Other potential cumulative effects: better property maintenance; slightly increased property
tax revenue; demolition of existing structures which interfere with proposed property lines, or
which exceed the allowed density for a proposed lot. New units will tend to be larger (in
square footage) than existing rental units, regardless of whether or not lot splits are allowed.
Fewer of the new units will be attached rental or condo units. The smaller lots would not
accommodate a unit larger than two bedrooms under current R-2 density limits, providing less
flexibility for legal bedroom additions.
4. Rezoning
The Hearing Officer recommended the Council consider initiating rezoning of the
neighborhood between Ella, Iris and George Streets from R-2 to R-1. He felt that individual
houses on small lots are more appropriate than multiple units, and that the number of
bedrooms allowed in single residence should not be restricted (which R-2 zoning would do, but
R-1 would not).
Although the Hearing Officer suggested consideration of rezoning the neighborhood from R-
2 to R-1, staff suggests that discussion of rezoning be deferred until after the General Plan
update program. The rezoning would raise issues related to General Plan consistency, and the
effect of making existing multi-family developments legally nonconforming, among others.
5. Summary
Staff concludes that the conversion of several units per year - the likely cumulative result of
approving this subdivision - will not significantly affect the availability of affordable rental
housing in the city, or the development patterns in the neighborhood.
It is unusual for the staff or Hearing Officer to support such a large reduction in lot area.
However, both have concluded that the circumstances noted above make this neighborhood
unique within the city. Under current zoning regulations, the small lots proposed will allow for
appropriate development of the subdivider's property, and similar subdivisions may be
appropriate for other properties in the immediate vicinity.
��3
MS 91-025
Page 4
CONCURRENCES
The attached draft resolution reflects the findings and conditions recommended by the Hearing
Officer. The conditions and ordinance requirements listed in the resolution reflect the
recommendations and requirements noted by other city departments.
FISCAL IMPACT
No significant impacts are expected on city costs or revenues.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may deny the proposed subdivision; a draft resolution incorporating possible
findings is attached.
The council may continue the proposed subdivision to the meeting of June 18, 1991, with
direction given to staff and the subdivider regarding additional information needed.
Continuance beyond that date requires the consent of the subdivider, because of deadlines
specified in the State Subdivision Map Act.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the council adopt the attached draft resolution, approving the tentative map
for Minor Subdivision MS 91-025, including exceptions to lot area, width, and depth, subject
to the findings, conditions and code requirements recommended by the Hearing Officer.
Attachments: Draft Resolutions for approval, denial
Vicinity Map
Tentative Map
Subdivider's Statement
Subdivision Hearing Minutes
Petition Supporting Subdivision
Initial Study ER 20-91
gtsd:MS91025C.wp
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Minor Subdivision 91-025
Page 2
1. The property is such a size and shape that it is undesirable
to conform to the strict application of lot area and
dimension standards.
2. The exceptions will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, nor will they be injurious to other
properties in the vicinity.
3 . The cost to the subdivider of strict compliance with the
standards is not the sole reason for granting the
exceptions.
4. Granting the requested exceptions is consistent with the
intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, and is
consistent with the General Plan.
SECTION 3. Conditions. The approval of the tentative map
for MS 91-025 is subject to the following conditions:
1. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review,
approval and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or
under the supervision of, a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
2. Subdivider shall provide individual electrical, cable
television, and natural gas services and metering for each
unit to the approval of affected public utility agencies and
the City Engineer.
3. Subdivider shall provide individual water services and sewer
connections for each lot, to the approval of the City
Engineer.
4. Subdivider shall remove the portion of the garage building
which encroaches on Lot 2, and/or modify any remaining
portion of the structure within three feet of the property
line to comply with separation requirements of the Uniform
Building Code, to the approval of the Chief Building
Official.
SECTION 4. Code Requirements. The following represent
standard requirements required by various codes, ordinances, and
policies of the City of San Luis Obispo, but are not limited to
the following:
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. MS 91-025
LOCATED AT 1239 IRIS STREET AND 12.34 GEORGE- STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findinas. That this council, after
consideration of the tentative map of Minor Subdivision MS 91-
025 and the Community Development Director's recommendations,
staff recommendations, and reports thereof, makes the following
findings:
1. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the general
plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of
development allowed in the R-2 zone.
3. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious
health problems, substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with
easements for access through (or use of property within) the
proposed subdivision.
5. The City Council has determined that the proposed
subdivision will not have a significant effect on the
environment and approves the negative declaration filed by
the Community Development Director.
SECTION 2. Exceptions. Approval of exceptions to allow lot
area of 3,750 square feet where a minimum lot area of 6000 square
feet is normlly required; lot depth of 75 feet where a minimum of
90 feet is normally required; and a lot width of 50 feet where 60
feet is normally required are hereby approved, based on the
following findings:
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Minor Subdivision 91-025
Page 3
1. Subdivider shall extend the public water main in Iris Street
to the northeasterly boundary of the subdivision, in
accordance with city standards and to the approval of the
City Engineer and the city's Utilities Engineer.
2. Subdivider shall abandon all utility services which cross
the newly created property line, to the approval of the
Chief Building Official.
3. Lot corners shall be staked by a registered civil engineer
or licensed land surveyor.
On motion of ,
seconded by , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1991.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Minor Subdivision 91-025
Page 4
APPROVED:
Of
City idmInistr,0ive f icer
At orn
Community Devel went Director
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. MS 91-025
LOCATED AT 1239 IRIS STREET AND 1234 GEORGE STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo to deny Minor Subdivision MS 91-025, based on the
following findings:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of the tentative map of Minor Subdivision MS 91-
025 and the Community Development Director's recommendations,
staff recommendations, and reports thereof, makes the following
findings:
1. The site is not physically suited for the type and density
of development allowed in the R-2 zone.
2. The proposed parcels would not meet the minimum standards
established by the Subdivision Regulations for lot area, lot
width, or lot depth.
3. Approval of exceptions to the standards noted above would
not be consistent with the intent of the Subdivision
Regulations as stated in Section 16.04. 020 of the Municipal
Code..
On motion of ,
seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1991.
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Minor Subdivision 91-025
Page 2
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Administrat' a off.'der'
tt me
.�• may/
Community Develop e t Director
R- 2.� S _o S
�►�P�u��'�"1 rooibl •
V
\F010 Its&
l�`� '• na 925 I r
2 _ 1:.77DA m
j.
A
�7 r 40�•l:.l•7r \
a y AMC u•»
slat.
�/ a•+ z -lee•.at
`L•i+ ttk t.•..ec
l
At :.•moi,._ =—�-•- d,?.s G . s�
,Vl � ---: ♦. •r\ ` •rte 100,
\ O
\1, t
04K12—
n
Val
Ip•OP � � � � 4� y5s � `\
3 /� ` n a',a•� �`' "O,:C�. �� KENDRA CT.
ARC a%
KRISTY CT.
�O
u1 -
vo
enc' MIN v
C
a
U3 u
J N a
WO $
U_
L
LU 13
~
L ? o i
O YO
�"lcO Z G
l 1 19 • a .
H 6
Li od
• � s
O 436
PA 7* I a=la►p
s' a a;
a ` of o ou$ I t
r J r ui A n9w
og $� %t5�,t�
- t
- z
u a 60
4'�73$
i ji i sid�7u�
`i10 —
M•'Ill• OOfOlpli
0-1
!!yy
r : I9
'! C u Q awn
•
star
u 3 mWe
9
PNI . •8 � rls
i 0
• VVV
•
Or
Y `
w
f �
Ll n
1 • 011r 1 �
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP # SLO-025
Styaow�o�s
A. Summary of Requested Exceptions
1 . Minimum lot area in this zone is 6000 sq. ft. This
request would create two lots of 3750 sq. ft. each.
2 . Minimum lot depth in this zone is 90 feet. This proposal
would create two lots 75 feet deep.
B. Findings
1. The layout of the lot is unique because it has two
frontages, one at either end. This layout is currently
discouraged by the Subdivision Regulations. It would be
more desirable to create two lots, each with a single
frontage.
2. Cost is not the sole reason for the exception request.
The lot is already built out, with two houses facing
separate streets. The present configuration only encourages
rental investment, while two separate lots could be owner-
occupied.
3 . The modification will not be detrimental to public
health, safety and welfare. Indeed, it may improve the
neighborhood in the following ways:
a. providing opportunities for owner/occupancy in lieu
of rentals,
b. providing lower cost housing, based on lot and
building size,
c. reducing traffic by locating families where
unrelated renters now dwell,
d. not affecting built density, since the buildings are
already on site.
4. Provision of lower cost housing and the reduction of
rentals within established neighborhoods are consistent with
General Plan provisions and community desires.
5. The precedent for smaller lots already exists in the
neighborhood. The subject property is located in a block
where one lot out of five has previously been subdivided.
The adjacent three blocks contain at least six lots that
have been divided to create lots smaller than the current
minimum area.
6. This entire neighborhood is unique, in that all the lots
were created as multiple frontage lots. Any exception
granted here would be confined to this neighborhood.
�f-13
DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISION HEARING - MINUTES
FRIDAY MAY 17, 1991
1239 Iris Street. Minor Subdivision No. MS 91-025. Consideration
of a tentative parcel map creating. two lots
from one lot, with exceptions to lot size and
lot depth; R-2 zone; Richard Steele,
subdivider.
Greg Smith. presented the staff report, noting the subdivider is
proposing to split a lot which has two frontages, one on Iris
Street and one on George Street. while the property is unusual
because of the two frontages between streets that are closely
spaced together, it is not unique. Mr. Smith explained that the
proposed subdivision is consistent with general plan and zoning
standards for zoning standards for density in the R-2 zone. He
noted that the proposed subdivision does involve exceptions to the
lot area, lot width and lot depth requirements, but does meet the
minimum requirements of the Zoning Regulations to support a two
bedroom house at the density of 12 units per acre. He explained
that staff has evaluated the effect of not only this subdivision,
but if it serves as a precedent for other subdivision in this
neighborhood. He noted that approximately eight subdivisions
similar to this have already occurred prior to adoption of the
current Subdivision standards. Staff sees up to several dozen
rental units being converted to potential ownership units over a
period of 10-20 years as these other properties might be subdivided
rather than developed with rental housing, or as existing rental
housing is subdivided and sold for owner-occupancy. Staff does not
see the magnitude of that decrease (perhaps 6 units per year) as
being significant on the overall housing stock of the city.
He said staff recommends that the council approve the proposed
subdivision and exceptions, based on findings and subject to
conditions and code requirements which he outlined.
The public hearing was opened.
Richard Steele, subdivider, spoke in support of his request. He
said he has lived on the property for the past seven years, and is
in agreement with the staff report and with the recommended
conditions. He felt that while the lot layout is not unique, it
is somewhat limited in scope throughout the city to this
neighborhood and maybe one other small place in town where there
are streets as close which are connected by a single lot. He also
felt that this neighborhood is one that is basically made up of
smaller homes, and the requested density will be similar to what
exists. He felt that development of the lot as proposed would
improve the neighborhood in a number of ways, one of which is that
it will offer some lower-cost affordable housing to be a part of
Director's Subdivision Hearing
May 17, 1991
Page 2
the city stock, and housing that will remain in the lower end of
the housing prices based on the size of the lots. He felt it also
increases the opportunity for owner occupancy rather than rental
occupancy, and that appears to be favored in affected
neighborhoods. He felt too, that there would be reduced traffic
and parking requirements if owners lived in the houses.
Mr. Steele reminded those present that he has submitted a petition
with the signatures of a number of people who show an interest in
this type of development occurring in this neighborhood.
Becky Hoffman, 1218 George Street, said she is a neighbor of Mr.
Steele. She supported his request, and felt that he could provide
affordable housing to people like her.
John Evans, 1136 George Street, supported the request. He
explained that in this neighborhood, it is obvious which homes are
occupied by owners and which are occupied by tenants, which are
usually students. He said that he and his wife would support
anything that would encourage owner-occupancy in the neighborhood.
The public hearing was closed.
Ken Bruce, commented that his personal opinion is that the proposal
is a very good one and he would like to see other similar
properties in this particular neighborhood consider like lot
splits. His concern was this will not set a precedent city-wide
in creating 3700 square foot lots, which he felt is not appropriate
in most cases. This particular neighborhood, however, is unique.
Mr. Bruce recommended the City Council approve the request,
suggesting that consideration be given to rezoning the property to
R-1 as opposed to R-2. Mr. Bruce's recommendation to the council
is based on the following findings, exceptions, conditions, and
code requirements:
Findings
1. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the general
plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of
development allowed in the R-2 zone.
Director's Subdivision Hearing
May 17, 1991
Page 3
3 . The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious
health problems, substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat.
4 . The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements
for access through (or use of property within) the proposed
subdivision.
5. The City Council has determined that the proposed subdivision
will not have a significant effect on the environment and
approves the negative declaration filed by the Community
Development Director.
Exceptions. (A) . To allow lot area of 3 ,750 square feet where a
minimum lot area of 6000 square feet is normally required; (B) . To
allow lot depth of 75 feet where a minimum of 90 feet is normally
required; and (C) . to allow a lot width of 5o feet where 60 feet
is normally required are hereby approved, based on the following
findings:
Findings
1. The property is such a size and shape that it is undesirable
to conform to the strict application of lot area and dimension
standards.
2 . The exceptions will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, nor will they be injurious to other
properties in the vicinity.
3 . The cost to the subdivider of strict compliance with the
standards is not the sole reason for granting the exceptions.
4 . Granting the requested exceptions is consistent with the
intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, and is
consistent with the General Plan.
Conditions
1. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review,
approval and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or
under the supervision of, a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
2. Subdivider shall provide individual electrical, cable
television, and natural gas services and metering for each
unit to the approval of affected public utility agencies and
the City Engineer.
Director's Subdivision Hearing
May 17, 1991
Page 4
3 . Subdivider shall provide individual water services and sewer
connections for each lot, to the approval of the City
Engineer.
4. Subdivider shall remove the portion of the garage building
which encroaches on Lot 2, and/or modify any remaining portion
of the structure within three feet of the property line to
comply with separation requirements of the Uniform Building
Code, to the approval of the Chief Building Official.
Code Recuirements
1. Subdivider shall extend the public water main in Iris Street
to the northeasterly boundary of the subdivision, in
accordance with city standards and to the approval of the City
Engineer and the city's Utilities Engineer. (Note:
Subdivider may enter into an agreement with developers of
Tract 1764 to share costs of extending the water main, if
development of their property will precede filing of minor
subdivision final map. )
2 . Subdivider shall abandon all utility services which cross the
newly created property line, to the approval of the Chief
Building Official.
3 . Subdivider shall install durable boundary monuments, to the
approval of the City Engineer.
We, the undersigned residents of the Ella Street neighborhood,
have reviewed Richard and Janet Steele's proposal for a lot
Split. We support the proposal because it would provide
additional lower cost houses, encourage owner occupancy in our
neighborhood, reduce traffic and follow an established precedent
of smaller lots in the area.
?/z z�s
LIJ
541- Sb e5 3- cr r
113 5 822 3 -23 1
I�WA
t� 77 `1 3/zT/5 /
5V3-35c53
1f—�8
We, the undersigned residents of the Ella Street neighborhood,
have reviewed Richard and Janet Steele's proposal for a lot
split. We support the proposal because it would provide
additional lower cost houses, encourage owner occupancy in our
neighborhood, reduce traffic and follow an established precedent
of smaller lots in the area.
57, &YS 2>> 31ZJ15
city of san tuts oBispo
Illlil�f�l��� �Ill�ii!�illlil�l�lil!�
a INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION APPLICATION NO.: L-7 .1
PROJECT DESCRIPTIO
APPLICANT
STA RECOMMENDATION:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED 1 TTIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY T DATE !Z�
CO UNITY DEVELOPMENT DIR@TION"mio==
DATEN(�XA1 irt, U 1 D eta eeE'rO
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS _
1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW ..:..................P $SIBLE��SE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ...............................
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH..........................................
C. LAND USE .......................................................................
0. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ..............................................
E. PUBLICSERVICES ..................................................................
F. UTILITIES.........................
...............................................
G. NOISE LEVELS ...................................................................
H. GEOLOGIC S SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MOCJIFICATIONS ....................
1. AIR QUALITY AND WINO CONDITIONS...............................................
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ..............................................��
K PLANT LIFE..........
............................................................
L. ANIMAL LIFE..................................................................... >
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAUHISTORICAL ...................................................
N. AESTHETIC
...................................... ... ..
O. ENERGYIRESOURCEUSE ........................................................
P. OTHER ...........................................................................
Ill.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
*SEE ATTACHED REPORT '/tea
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL. SETTING
The project consists of dividing an existing 7500 square foot lot
to create two 3750 square foot lots. Each lot would have a 50-
foot frontage on a dedicated city street.
Each lot would involve exceptions to standards in the city's
subdivision regulations: 3750 square foot area where 6000 square
foot area is normally required, 75 foot lot depth where 90 foot
is normally required, and 50 foot lot width where 60 feet is
normally required.
The site is developed with two, two bedroom residences, one
oriented toward each street. Two paved parking spaces are provided
with each residence, with driveway access to the respective street
frontages. A carport is provided with the residence oriented
toward Iris Street; a nonconforming garage building straddles the
(existing) property line between the project site and the adjacent
lot to the northeast.
Several mature trees are located on the site. The trees are not
proposed to be removed. No other significant vegetation is located
on the site.
The project site is one of approximately 30 double frontage, 150
foot deep lots in the neighborhood. Of the original number,
approximately 8 have were split in a manner similar to the proposed
project, prior to adoption of current subdivision standards in the
mid-1950's. Since that time, no new lot splits have been
requested. Approximately 8 of the original lots have been combined
or resubdivided to accommodate development of commonly-owned lots,
leaving approximately 14 lots similar to the project site. Of the .
fourteen lots still in the original configuration, roughly half
have been developed with two houses, as is the case with the
project site.
There are 9 additional lots similarly situated between Rachel and
Swazey Streets in a separate nearby subdivision, and there are two
locations where double frontage lots occur with one frontage on a
limited-access road. Otherwise, there are no other areas in the
city where a double-frontage lot pattern occurs.
Thus, in reviewing cumulative impacts of the project, this initial
study will assume that ultimately, as many as two dozen similar
projects may occur.
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS
The new lots would not meet standards for minimum lot area or
depth, as specified in the city's Subdivision Regulations.
Existing development, as well as likely future development, would
comply with all other city development standards, and would comply
with General Plan policies for density of residential development
in Medium Density Residential districts.
As noted above, up to two dozen similar projects may occur. It
does not appear that even that number of projects would constitute
a significant adverse impact in terms of consistency with the
city's adopted plans and goals. The neighborhoods where the
projects would occur is substantially developed, and it will not
be feasible to replace roads and other infrastructure with more
efficient layouts in the foreseeable future.
Two dozen similar projects would result in the gradual shifting of
up to four dozen residential units from rental status to owner
occupancy, and a likely reduction in the number of families to
which the units would be affordable. The Housing Element includes
a goal of "Maintaining a stock of housing types to meet the needs
of renters and buyers at all income levels", and there are no
specific policies favoring rental versus owner-occupied housing.
Evaluation: No significant conflict with adopted plans and goals
will occur, either as a result of this project or as a cumulative
result of similar projects.
F. UTILITIES
Individual utility services will be required for each of the two
lots. This will involve extension of a city water main and -a
natural gas main. No significant effect will occur.
O. ENERGY/RESOURCE USE
The city's reliable supply of water from all sources is less than
the typical demand, and the city has imposed mandatory water
conservation and construction allocation regulations in an effort
to mitigate the effects of the demand/supply imbalance. However,
the proposed project will not affect the amount of water consumed,
since the project site is already fully developed.