Before discussions began Commissioner Wayne Garibaldi and Planner Susan Peters both excused themselves as there was or is a potential conflict of interest. The City’s Senior Building Inspector Larry White, introduced the item and offered his assistance in answering any of the Commissioner’s questions. The applicants, Carol Quint and Craig Bryant, proposed to divide one .724 acre site located at 10316 Amador Street into four parcels ranging in size from 7,051 square feet to 8,877 square feet. The site currently has a single family residence which would be demolished as part of the proposed project.

The proposed use of the four parcels is single-family residential. Parcels 1 and 2 would be accessed off of Amador Street while Parcels 3 and 4 could have access off of Argonaut Drive. The parcel split prompted an initial study which was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The initial study revealed a potentially significant adverse environmental impact to traffic, thus the project does not qualify for a Negative Declaration- a quicker way to approval. Staff has therefore recommended that the applicants prepare an Environmental Impact Report.

According to the Staff report, “Despite the significant unavoidable impact to circulation resulting from any additional traffic, the Planning Commission has approved a few new Tentative Parcel Maps with a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration as opposed to an EIR on the basis that the City is in the process of amending the Circulation Element and small infill projects would, according to the Proposed update, be allowed to exceed the Level of Service threshold.” “For this reason,” staff recommended in the report that, “the Commission choose to approve the project with a Negative Declaration.” However, Commissioners and the public did not see it as that cut and dry. Commissioner Warren Carlton said that he has spoken to the Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Mike Carey, and the ACUSD is concerned about infill projects similar to this one. A few homes here and there has added up, countywide to a few hundred homes and scores of new students “…it is becoming a problem and we have got to do something to solve it.

” Darlene Boyle, a homeowner immediately adjacent to the property, had a slew of other concerns to add to Carlton’s. One of which became a primary concern of all those in attendance, the small lot that would be created as a result of the split, which many felt was unreasonable. Richard Bryant a nearby neighbor also mentioned that an increase in traffic is also not at all appealing to surrounding residents. Other concerns mentioned regarding the approval of the project included the establishment of a precedent by the City Council the devaluation of surrounding homes by development of four undersized lots with 4 small homes. After some discussion, most of which echoed public concerns, the Planning Commission decided unanimously not to approve the lot split.