Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables proposed four-lot subdivision at 109 Hamlet Street after public concerns about trees and neighborhood fit
Summary
Developers proposed dividing a 0.44-acre parcel at 109 Hamlet Street into four small lots for detached homes; the planning commission recommended approval but neighbors raised concerns about oak-tree removal, lot sizes and neighborhood character. Council voted to table the PUD and continue the public hearing to the next meeting for further discussion with the developer.
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A developer team (Sequoia Development and partners) requested approval for a planned unit development and tentative parcel map to divide a 0.44-acre parcel at 109 Hamlet Street into four parcels for single-family homes. City Planner Steve Brandt said the parcel is smaller than the city’s 5,000-square-foot minimum parcel standard and therefore requires a PUD; the planner also noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA and that the planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.
Planner and staff explained the city’s oak-tree protection ordinance requires mitigation for removed heritage oaks; staff described a mitigation ratio (1 inch of removed tree = number of replacement inches) that resulted in a condition requiring approximately 72 inches of mitigation or payment of an in-lieu fee for the city to plant trees elsewhere. Developer representatives described a four-home infill plan (unit sizes discussed: ~1,292; ~1,518 square feet; one two-story unit) and estimated a target market price near $350,000.
Neighbors submitted opposition during the planning process (a written comment from Evelyn Joanne Badashi, the resident across the street, was read into the record), and public commenters at council raised concerns that four small lots would not fit the character of adjacent lots and that small infill units can become rentals rather than owner-occupied homes. Council members questioned whether a three-lot alternative could better preserve trees and neighborhood character; the developer said three lots would be financially possible but would materially reduce the project’s viability or change builder profiles. The council voted to table the matter and continue the public hearing to the next meeting to allow further discussion between staff, council and the applicant.

