Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 436 <br />Mayor Aguirre and Members of the City Council <br />April 15, 2013 <br />Page 4 <br />the 1926 map did not create legal, non -conforming lots, it is the burden of the applicant to <br />demonstrate that each of the lots within the Project is legal. The applicant has done no <br />such thing.4 Moreover, SLW submitted evidence to the Planning Commission suggesting <br />that some contiguous lots have been conveyed together over the years and only recently <br />subdivided by conveyance without a parcel map. Such lots are clearly not "legal, non- <br />conforming" lots, as the Planning Commission assumed. Finally, members of the public <br />also submitted evidence and testimony, based on research at the County Recorder's <br />office, indicating that at least two lots appear to have been modified through merger and <br />re -subdivision so that they are not longer identical to the lots shown on the 1926 map. <br />At the very least, before considering approval of this dense residential <br />development, the City must require the applicant to obtain certificates or conditional <br />certificates of compliance for each of these lots. In addition, since there are a number of <br />contiguous lots with common owners, the City must consider requiring the owners to <br />merge these lots to reduce the Project's significant impacts. <br />The Planning Commission's Attem t to Limit Dwelling Size While a <br />Step in the Rr ht Direction Is Unenforceable and Insufficient. While SLW <br />appreciates the Planning Commission's attempt to reign in the scale of the proposed <br />Project by limiting its approval of a master PD Permit to individual dwelling sizes <br />ranging from 2,000 to 3,400 square feet, we remain concerned that this limitation will <br />have little or no effect on the actual residences built. Each individual lot owner can come <br />back—indeed must come back—to the City for an individual PD Permit, which will be <br />subject to approval by the zoning administrator. The ETR certified by the Planning <br />Commission found that developing all 16 houses at the originally proposed sizes (3,300 <br />to 4,500 square feet) would have no significant environmental impact. Moreover, the <br />applicant has supported the granting of a PD permit of a super -size dwelling on 3718 <br />Laurel Way, another small, steeply sloped lot a stone's throw from the Project. Thus, <br />what is to keep the Project Proponents from seeking, and the City from approving, <br />individual PD Permits for much bigger houses down the line, with no additional <br />environmental review? <br />4 The applicant also relies on the 1926 map to support its right to build the two- <br />lane, bi-level road and cul-de-sac. Because the 1926 map does not comply with modern <br />Map Act provisions, the applicant must also find other support to demonstrate its right to <br />build the access road. <br />tiHl'�1 �• \1111;\Il <br />