Resolution 1997-08
....A0::7
., .
.
.
<
RESOLUTION NO. 97-8
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY APPROVING TM 96-01, A TENTATIVE MAP
WITH SIXTY-FIVE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND SEVEN
COMMON AREAS ON APPROXIMATELY 9.05 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SANTA TERESA
BOULEVARD, APN 790-05-039.
WHEREAS, South County Housing ("Applicant") submitted TM
96-01, requesting Tentative Map approval in order to subdivide a
9.05 acre parcel into sixty-five residential lots and seven common
areas, zoned R1-PUD (Single Family Residential
Planned Unit
Development); and
WHEREAS, the property affected by TM 96-01 is located on
the east side of Santa Teresa Boulevard, adjacent to the future
Longmeadow Drive extension; and
WHEREAS,
pursuant
to
the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") an Initial Study was prepared for this project
which
identified
potentially
significant
effects
on
the
environment, however the Applicant has agreed to individual
mitigation measures which will avoid or mitigate the effects to a
point where no significant impacts will occur; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA a Negative Declaration
with 11 mitigation measures and a mitigation monitoring program has
been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing on December 5, 1996, at which it considered this
project and voted to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration
as completed in compliance with CEQA and reflecting the independent
judgment of the City and recommended approval of this project to
the City Council with 26 conditions set forth in the staff report
for the project dated November 25, 1996 that is attached hereto as
Exhibit A, and which is incorporated herein by this reference, and
two additional conditions set forth in the revised staff report
dated December 9, 1996; and
IRPJ\328039.01
74-010804706002
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 97-8
. .
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing on December 16, 1996, at which public hearing the City
Council considered the public testimony and other documentation on
the project; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or
other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which this proj ect approval is based is the office of the City
Clerk.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. The City Council finds as follows:
1. The project is consistent with the Gilroy General
Plan because it conforms to the land use designation
for the property on the General Plan map, and it is
consistent with the intent of the text, goals and
policies of the General Plan documents;
2. None of the reasons for denial of this subdivision
pursuant to Government Code section 66474 exist in
this case; and
3. There is no substantial evidence that the project as
mitigated may have a significant effect on the
environment.
B. The Negative Declaration is adopted as completed in
compiiance with CEQA and reflecting the independent
judgment of the City, and the mitigation/monitoring program
associated therewith is adopted.
C. TM 96-01 should be and hereby is approved, subject to the
26 conditions set forth in the staff report dated November
25, 1996 and the two additional conditions set forth in the
revised staff report dated December 9, 1996, attached
hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this
reference.
\RPJ\328039.01
74-010804706002
-2-
.
.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6TH day of January, 1997 by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: MORALES, ROGERS, ROWLISON, SPRINGER,
VALDEZ, GAGE
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GILROY
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
\RPJ\328039.01
74-010804706002
-3-
. .
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Staff Report
EXHIBIT "A"
November 25, 1996
File Number: TM 96-01
Applicant: South County Housing
Location: East side of Santa Teresa Boulevard, adjacent to the future Longmeadow Drive extension
Staff Planner: Melissa Durkin
REOUESTED ACTION:
Approval of a tentative map for a subdivision of 65 residential lots and 7 common area lots.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
Parcel Number:
Parcel Size:
Flood Zone:
790-05-039
9.05:1: acres [Note: 7.5 Net Acres]
"B" , Panel # 0603370640 D
Panel Date: 10/06/81, Revised to reflect LOMR 8/31/95
STA TUS OF PROPERTY:
Existing Land Use
Undeveloped Land
General Plan Designation
Low Density Residential
Zoning
RI-PUD
STA TUS OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY:
Existing Laud Use
N: Undeveloped
. S: Undeveloped/Drainage Channel
E: AgriculturelDrainage Channel
W: Santa Teresa Blvd./S.F. Homes
General Plan Designation
PPF / Secondary SchoollPark
PPF /Low Density Residential
PPF /Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Zoning
County Ag.
RI
County Ag.
RI-PUD
TM 96-01
.
.
2
11/25/96
CONFORMANCE OF REOUEST WITH GENERAL PLAN:
The proposed project confonns to the land use designation for the property on the General Plan map,
and is consistent with the intent of the text of the General Plan document.
This project confonns with the policies of Gilroy's General Plan. The following examples demonstrate
this compliance:
Urban Deyelopment and Community Desisn (Section IT):
Policy 3: "Urban Development will only occur within the incorporated portion of the Planning Area.
Land will therefore be annexed to the City before final development approval is given. "
The proposed project is in conformance with this policy, because this land was annexed to
the City in January of 1994.
Policy 4: "The City will phase development in an orderly, contiguous manner in order to maintain
a compact development pattern to avoid premature investment for the extension of public
facilities and services. New urban development will occur in areas where municipal
services are available and capacity exists prior to the approval of development in areas
which would require major new facility expansion. "
The proposed project is in conformance with this policy, because this property is adjacent
to developed residential property on the west.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC~S:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
An expanded initial study has been prepared for this project. The study identified potentially significant
effects on the environment, however, the applicant has agreed to individual mitigation measures which
will avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impacts will occur. A Negative
Declaration, with 11 mitigation measures, has been prepared for this project.
RELA TED APPLICA nONS:
A1S 96-11 (PUD):
Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for the architectural design of 65 dwelling units.
1M 96-01
.
.
3
11/25/96
RDO BACKGROUND:
This project is proposed to be developed by South County Housing, which is a private, non-profit
developer of affordable homes, and is therefore eligible to be exempt from the provisions of the
Residential Development Ordinance (RDO) under section 50.62 (b) (3). The City Council approved
this exemption on September 23, 1996. As a condition of approval of this request, the applicant will
be required to sign an agreement with the Gilroy Unified School District which mitigates this project's
impacts on Gilroy schools.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
This property was designated as ParklPublic facility on the General Plan map from 1985 to 1993, and
was proposed to be developed with a secondary school site and a City park. In September of 1993,
the General Plan designation of this site was changed to Low Density Residential, due to the fact that
the School District had no definite plans to purchase or develop the property. This property was
annexed to the City in 1994, and was designated as Single Family Residential - Planned Unit
Development (RI-PUD) in 1995.
ANALYSIS OF REOUEST:
This proposed tentative map will subdivide an approximately 9 acre site into 72 lots; 65 of these lots
will be used by South County Housing to construct single family homes, and seven of these lots will
be used for common areas, including private driveways and parking stalls.
This site has a zoning designation ofRI-PUD (Single Family Residential - Planned Unit Development).
The applicant is proposing to use the flexibility of the PUD overlay to allow the Tentative Map to
deviate from standard Zoning Ordinance requirements in three ways: 1) to allow a density bonus which
would increase the density of the site from 7.25 dwelling units per net acre to 8.79 dwelling units per
net acre; 2) to allow the lots to be less than the minimum allowed 6,000 square feet; and 3) to allow
private streets to be constructed which are smaller than standard City streets. The following analysis
clarifies this request:
Densi(y Bonus Issues
On October 30, 1995, the City Council approved a Zoning Ordinance text change which permits a
residential density bonus of at least 25% and an additional incentive, or incentive of equivalent
financial value, to developers who provide affordable housing in the following ratios:
a) 20 percent of the units for lower-income households; or
b) 10 percent of the units for very low-income households; or
c) 50 percent of the units for senior citizens.
TM' 96-01
.
4
.
11/25/96
South County Housing is proposing to subdivide this site into 65 residential lots, and sell 30 of the lots
to lower income household (as defined by California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5). The
project would therefore provide approximately 46% of the homes constructed to lower income buyers,
which is 26% above the minimum requirement. The remaining 35 lots will be constructed upon with
below-market rate units.
The "Density Bonus" Ordinance, which is mandated by State law, allows a minimum of a 25% density
bonus. South County Housing is requesting to construct at a density of 8.79 dwelling units per net
acre, which is 1.54 dwelling units per net acre above the nonnal Zoning Ordinance restriction of7.25
dwelling units per net acre in the Rl zoning district. Therefore, South County Housing is requesting
an increased density of 21.2% per net acre.
Lot Size Exception
In order to accommodate the increased density within this development, the applicant is requesting an
exception to the minimum 6,000 square foot lot size requirement. The lots in this development range
in size from 3,066 square feet to 5,193 square feet, with an average size of approximately 3,400 square
feet and a median size of approximately 3,200 square feet. Staffhas two primary concerns with this
reduced lot size. The first concern is the ability of the lots to accommodate houses within the
appropriate setbacks. The applicant has addressed this concern by designing homes specifically to fit
on these lots, and by requesting reduced side yard setbacks within the PUD application for this project
(A/S 96-11).
The second concern which staff has with the reduced lot sizes is that the amount of lot frontage will
also be reduced, which limits the opportunities for on-street parking. This issue has been addressed
by the provision of 52 parking stalls in the common areas of this development. In addition, the
developer will be constructing two-car garages on all of the lots in this tract, and parking is available
on Hirasaki Avenue and Longmeadow.Drive.
Private Streets
The applicant is proposing to provide private streets to access lots within this development, in order
to maximize the number of residential lots which can be created. These streets are 24 feet in width,
and meet minimum requirements for emergency access. Vehicles will be prohibited from parking on
the private streets, due to this narrow width, but will have other parking opportunities in this
development (street parking on Longmeadow Drive and Hirasaki Avenue, on-site parking stalls, and
two-car garages located on each lot).
South County Housing is proposing to construct three different models of homes in this project. The
design of these homes will be considered under accompanying PUD application A/S 96-11, and will
be subject to Planning Commission and City Council approval.
TM 96-01
.
5
.
11/25/96
Originally, the lots abutting Hirasaki Avenue were shown with their back yards adjacent to this street.
Development of these lots would have resulted in a continuous fence line along Hirasaki Avenue. This
configuration would have isolated the neighborhood, rather than integrating it into the community as
a whole. To remedy this situation, the applicant has oriented lots 16 through 18 and lots 20 through
24 so that they face Hirasaki Avenue. The remaining homes are accessed off of the interior private
streets.
Water Channel Issues
The proposed project is bordered on its south and east sides by water channels. General Plan Section
VI-3, policy number 15 states, "The City should attempt to acquire the rights to use public and quasi-
public utility and drainage channel corridors as linear parks to provide the network for a system of
pedestrian and bicycle paths." Based on this policy, City staff is attempting to limit the number of
houses built with their rear yards adjacent to the channe~ by reserving these areas for open space,
parking areas, streets or other buffers. The reason for this request is that residential rear yards abutting
trails and pathways can create undesirable situations for two primary reasons: 1) The public presence
on the trails and pathways may interfere with the privacy of adjacent residents and 2) When trails and
pathways abut residences, they cannot be seen from the public right-of-way, and therefore are difficult
to monitor by public safety personnel.
South County Housing has addressed the City's water channel policy by placing common areas adjacent
to the channel. The uses in this areas include landscaping, parking and an emergency access. The
applicant has successfully limited all but one home from abutting the channel. Staff feels that the
proposed design meets the intent of this policy.
Sound Wall Issues
A sound wall will be required to be constructed at this site to reduce the amount of noise which future
residents will be subjected to from Santa Teresa Boulevard. The acoustical analysis which was
prepared for this project has determined that a 9.5 foot soundwall must be constructed along the
western boundary of this site, and must be extended along the northern property boundary as indicated
in the Initial Study. Staffhas two concerns with this sound wall design:
1. The visual impact of the sound wall is likely to be substantial. Staffis proposing to mitigate this
impact by requiring a landscaped berm in front of the wall along Sdanta Teresa Boulevard, and
by requiring the applicant to construct a wall which has an enhanced architectural element.
2. The homes which are adjacent to this sound wall will have an unusually high rear yard barrier.
This situation is not ideal because it creates a sense of confinement. This situation is somewhat
mitigated by the fact that these houses are oriented toward the east, and therefore will receive
adequate sunlight.
TM 96-0 1
.
6
.
11/25/96
Community Meetin~
A community meeting was held to discuss this project on November 6, 1996. The same procedures
were used to notify the public of this meeting as are used to communicate public hearings (i.e.
announcements were including in the Planning Commission and City Council packets, all property
owners within a 300 foot radius were notified, individuals expressing interest in this project were
notified, and announcements were placed on Channel 34 and in The Dispatch). The following issues
arose at this meeting:
1. Location of the Secondary Access
A primary emergency access road will be located along Santa Teresa Boulevard, between lots
3 and 4. Another emergency access road will be located south oflots 20 and 29.
2. Treatment of the Land between the proiect and the SCVWD channel
These areas will be landscaped in compliance with City of Gilroy standards and SCVWD
standards. The landscaping will be maintained by the future Home Owners Association.
3. Should the City Consider Extending Longmeadow Avenue to Kern Avenue?
The current plan for this area is to construct Longmeadow Drive (a Collector street) across
Santa Teresa Boulevard only to the point where it connects with Hirasaki Avenue (a Collector
street). Hirasaki will extend north to the future Cohansey Avenue extension (an Arterial), and
south to Mantelli Drive (an Arterial). This scenario has been analyzed by the Engineering
Division, and is adequate to meet planned traffic needs. An extension to Kern Avenue would
not be necessary.
4 . Would there be increased traffic loading ofLongmeadow Drive west of Santa Teresa Boulevard
by not extending it to Kern Avenue?
There would be no change in traffic generation along Longmeadow Drive.
5. What is the scheduled buildout time period for this proiect?
The time frame for the buildout of this project is approximately 1.5 years.
6. Will South County Housing be Required to Pc\y School Impact Fees to the G U.S D.?
As a condition of approval for this project, the developer will be required to pay School Impact
fees to the G.U.S.D. The amount of these fees will be mutually agreed to by the developer and
the G.U.S.D.
7. Consider Placing a Parking Area Along Santa Teresa Boulevard Adiacent to the Sound Wall
If the parking stalls were placed along Santa Teresa Boulevard, the homes in that location would
need to be relocated where the parking stalls are currently shown. This scenario was reviewed
by the developer, and was found to be infeasible, due to the location of Longmeadow Drive.
The alignment of Longmeadow Drive has been established by the City, and its location is
inflexible. The alignment ofLongmeadow Drive would create two problems if residential lots
were located adjacent to it:
TM 96-01
.
.
7
11125/96
1. The available land area would not be deep enough to accommodate residential lots.
2. These lots would need to be accessed from Longmeadow Drive, in order to maximize
their size. The close proximity of the driveways for these' lots to the
Longmeadow/Santa Teresa intersection and the Longmeadow/Hirasaki intersection
would cause safety concerns.
8. Will there be a BiG)'cIe Lane on Santa Teresa Boulevard?
A Type II bicycle lane will be constructed along Santa Teresa Boulevard, as required by
Mitigation Measure 6. a. in the Negative Declaration.
9. How Many Units Have Been Built/Will be Built by South County Housing in the Northcentral
Portion of the City
In the area of the City between Santa Teresa Boulevard and Monterey Road, north ofWelburn
Avenue, the following units have been built or will be built:
* The Redwoods: 30 Units
* Monterra Village: 34 Units
* Glenbrook: 66 Units
* Alderwood: 60 Units
* Summerhill: 65 Units
Total: 255 Units
Primary access to this development will be provided by Longmeadow Drive (a collector), and Hirasaki
Avenue (a collector). The proposed tract map configuration also shows two new private streets which
contribute to the traffic circulation of this project. The proposed street alignments are consistent with
minimum City development standards.
As submitted, this project is consistent with the intent of the City's General Plan text and Land Use
Map, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision and Land Development code, and the Residential Development
Ordinance exemption approved by the City Council.
FINDINGS:
In order to grant Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval, the Planning Commission and City
council must find that the proposed Planned Unit Development will:
A. Confonn to the Gilroy General Plan in tenns of general location and standards of development;
B. Provide the type of development which will fill a specific need of the surrounding area;
C. Not require urban services beyond those which are currently available;
TM 96-01
.
8
.
11/25/96
D. Provide a harmonious, integrated plan which justifies exceptions, if such are required, to the
normal requirements of this ordinance;
E. Reflect an economical and efficient pattern ofland uses;
F. Include greater provisions for landscaping and open-space than would generally be required.
G. Utilize aesthetic design principles to create attractive buildings and open space areas which blend
with the character of surrounding areas;
H. Not create traffic congestion, noise, odor or other adverse effects on surrounding areas; and
1. Provide adequate access, parking, landscaping, trash areas and storage, as necessary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of this request for the followini reasons:
A. The project proposal is consistent with the exemption from the Residential Development
Ordinance granted to the developer by the City Council;
B. The proposed tentative map is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the City's
General Plan document;
C. The proposed development is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the City's Subdivision
and Land Development Code;
D. Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed in order to serve the proposed project are
in close proximity; and
E. There will be no significant environmental impacts as a result of this project due to the required
mitigation measures to be applied.
F. The proposed development is consistent with PUD findings A through I, as stated in Zoning
Ordinance Section 50.55.
In addition. Staff recommends the following conditions be placed on the approval of this request:
1. Mitigation Measures 1 through 11 contained within the Negative Declaration for this project shall
be applied to the approval of the project in order to reduce and/or eliminate all potential
significant impacts to a level of insignificance, as required under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division.
TM 96-01
.
9
.
11/25/96
2. Hydrant locations and water main sizing shall be subject to approval by the Building, Life and
Envirorunental Safety Division, prior to the issuance of any building pennits.
3. Street improvements and the design of all storm drainage, sewer and water lines, and all street
sections and widths shall be subject to the review and approval of the Engineering Division.
4. All utilities to, through, and on the site shall be constructed underground, in accordance with
Municipal Code Section 21.120, subject to the review and approval of the Engineering Division.
5. All improvements are to be done per City of Gilroy Standards, subject to the approval of the
City Engineer.
6. All retaining walls must be constructed of permanent materials such as concrete or masomy.
Wood shall not be pennitted. This shall be subject to review and approval be the Engineering
Division.
7. All grading operations and soil.compaction activities shall be per the approved soils report and
shall meet with the approval of the City Engineer. Grading plans shall show grades of all adjacent
properties, and shall be subject to the approval of the Engineering Division.
8. All lots shall drain to the street for storm drainage, subject to the review and approval of the
Engineering Division.
9. This development is responsible to revise and reinstall the striping at the new signal installation
at the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Longmeadow Drive intersection. All required modifications
needed to the intersection that are required for it to work in its ultimate four-legged
configuration will solely he the responsibility of this development. These modifications include
but are not limited to new striping and the extension of the box culvert located on the east side
of Santa Teresa Boulevard south of the intersection. This shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Engineering Division.
10. The Santa Teresa BoulevardILongmeadaw Drive intersection design shall correspond to the
traffic signal plan as designed by the engineeringfinn of Ruggeri-Jensen, subject to the review
and approval of the Engineering Division.
11. The applicant shall provide curve returns at all tw~legged intersections. This shall be subject
to the review and approval of the Engineering Division.
12. The developer shall negotiate rights-of-way with Pacific Gas and Electric and other utilities,
subject to review and approval by the Engineering Division and the utility companies.
13. The developer shall install an architecturally enhanced soundwall at this site, subject to review
and approval by the Planning Division and the Engineering Division.
14. The sound wall and landscaping along Santa Teresa Boulevard shall be installed by the
TM 96-01
.
10
.
11/25/96
developer according to City standards. The soundwall shall be landscaped with a berm. Plant
materials shall be subject to the approval of the Community Services Department. Provisions
shall be made by the developer for a funding mechanism for the maintenance of the sound wall
and landscaping in the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Community
Services Department and the Engineering Division.
15. All existing water wells shall be sealed to meet the approval of the City Engineer and the Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD).
16. An encroachment permit will be required from the SCVWD for the outlet structures and
locations, subject to review and approval by the SCVWD.
17. A SCVWD permit is required for any construction within or adjacent to North Morey Channel.
Improvements plans should be sent to the district, and should show grading, drainage,
landscaping and fencing. All plans shall be subject to review and approval by the SCVWD
18. Site grading should be done such that there is no overbank drainage into the creek, subject to
review and approval by the SCVWD.
19. Site drainage should be directed to an existing storm drain system. If an outfall is required into
the creek, it must be constructed in accordance with SCVWD standards, subject to review and
approval by the SCVWD.
20. Landscaping adjacent to the creek side property line shall consist of California native species.
Any trees planted near the property line should be placed such that they do not overhang the
property line, or are of a variety that can be pruned and trained to provide a minimum vertical
clearance of 15 feet over the SCVWD property. All landscaping adjacent to the creek shall be
subject to review and approval by the SCVWD.
21. Fencing shall be provided by the developer along the side of the residential lot which abuts the
creek. Chain link fence may be placed on the property line. Any other type must be installed
off the SCVWD right of way, and must be maintained by developer or future property owners.
Fencing adjacent to the creek shall be subject to review and approval by the SCVWD.
22. The SCVWD streamside development policy should be incorporated into the design layout, to
the extent possible, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division and the
Engineering Division.
23. The developer will be required to obtain a NPDES General Permitfor Storm Water Discharge
Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Control Board, subject
to review and approval by the SCVWD and the State Water Resources Control Board
24. It is strongly recommended that South County Housing develop an educational program of best
1M 96-0 1
.
11
.
11125/96
management practices for minimizing nonpoint source pollution which may originate from
future homeowner's activities, subject to review and approval by the SCVWD.
25. Subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, Planning
Commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the
City or its City Council, Planning Commission, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside,
void, or annul an approval of the City, City Council, Planning Commission, or other board,
advisory agency, or legislative body concerning this subdivision. City will promptly notify the
subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding against it, and will cooperate fully in the defense.
This condition is imposed pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.9.
26. The developer shall sign an agreement with the Gilroy Unified School District, agreeing to
mitigate the impacts of this development on Gilroy schools, subject to review and approval by
the G. U.S.D.
Respectfully, ~
~d{
WilliamFaus ~
Planner ill
12-5-96
At their meeting of December 5, 1996, the Planning Commission, by a vote of
5-0-1 (Commissioner Pinheiro excused himself from this project because of
possible conflict of interest), recommended adoption of the preliminary ~Iitigated
Negative Declaration as completed in compliance with CEQA and reflecting the
independent judgment of the City and recommended approval of TN! 96-01 with
26 conditions as set forth in the staff report, and 2 additional conditions as
recommended by the City Attorney. (Resolution #96-31).
AYES: ARELLA.1"\J"O, BLANKLEY, COLLIER., LAI, PUENTE
NA YES: NONE
ABSENT: PINHEIRO
...._-_.._---_.__.._--._-_._-_..~--
.
SCALE r il
..... . '00) 1000 '- 'a.o ~ L
..... . . , ., 0..1 o. 0.' 0.. 0" O. o ......0 -.a -1- -. '-, ~
--. ,.. - -- .00 1000 ~ ~ cr. ~ ~"'>>_
, \ I
~ I ; I! \
I ~/ j"", 'Ii ....
I ; r ~I !~ L
I II I;
~. '-
:; .......
-- ~'I / ~
..
\ It.,.~! .~I
I
;:l I
.. I II !! I w.
c :1
: ~,
::I ..
I :,
\.. ~ 11\0I. j I .1
Ir ___, ~ I ;/
01 /--_; i 1
!~(--I !
;
- ~
}\ . I ..
i; ~
" !..~ _"I
i............... i r-I~!
- 1/ --err- ' ..,
o . I
,
-(3
L
R
O'"'ly
: r :.J
=,
I
I
1,- - -J
IlL -, ,.
31 ~_J
~ l. \
,,0.\
/ 11\
I '
,e!.~ !
I ~ "" \
I
-~
~-
,-
"'
....
"
:.
Source: California State Automobile AssOCiation
LOCATION. IVIAP
FOR
TIVI
96-01
AND
A/S
96-11
.
Cfb-Ol
If you have any questions regarding the proposals, we encourage you to contact the Planning Department prior to the
hearing. You have the right to appear at the hearings. You may also send in any comments you have on the proposal.
CASE NO. TM 96-01
XI do not have any objections to these requests.
_I do have objections to these requests.
Comments:
II/i9/7b
Signature & Date
:ZtJ/R t,t'~~LK~ /r
Print Name & Address
739S' Kck',.vi
G; L/?Oj t' el1-,
Yi:;1..- 35"00
LJ (/..:-
/7 _.
P:rO 2 (:
RECEIVED
NOV 2 11996
Gilroy Planning Div.
If you have any questions regarding the proposals, we encourage you to contact the Planning~p~ It!>I1~' ED',
hearing. You have the right to appear at the hearings. You may also send in Iloy comme!lts ~IIEe\w.t1Eptf>pMl. _
CASE NO. TM 96-01
NOV 2 6 1996
-' do not have any objections to these requests.
~ have objections to these requests.
Comments: i V~ !' h c.-del 1-; r. Vr"_ (-; 0 /0 f ,
I II .;!,. p{ h .: f- r; "": r> c I /., - t:'o h "',,, ~
/
~'-"~../ ~/) Lvu------- 1(- J. L- '; {;
Signahlr,e &)~:5ate
I I I/-:U-%
'kL4..--...;Zyu~ ..:...... 7;
Gilroy Planning Div.
Ilc: r -tjtt~ n (co c )q. It.
t! f J../r:.'n c K a tie, .r
./
.f C: r":'7 .)- f c:.. ,; h ~ 11 j' C Ii
Print Name & Address 0
/b}] f-/f..:if"Y''Jj,tv,.:th" '~
f/I ril, t.', 6.{."'j G. f\ / '1- c ..t C
.
.
Community Development Department
Planning Division EXHIBIT "B"
Memorandum
December 9, 1996
TO:
City Administrator
FROM:
William Faus, Planner III
STAFF:
Melissa Durkin, Planner II
SUBJECT: Additional Conditions of approval for TM 96-01
At the December 5, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted to add the following
condition of approval to the Summerhill Tentative Map (TM 96-01):
27. A homeowner's association shall be required to be formed for this development, in order to
maintain the common areas, subject to the review and approval of the Department of Real Estate.
In addition, the City Attorney has suggested the following condition be applied to the Tentative Map:
28. Prior to Final Map recordation, the developer shall create a legal instrument which requires all
future property owners within this Planned Unit Development (PUD) to share the costs of
maintaining the following improvements:
a. private streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks;
b common parking areas;
c. common landscaping areas; and
d. emergency access strips.
This legal instrument shall be recorded simultaneously with the Final Map, subject to the review
and approval of the Engineering Division.
Respectfully, ~
II/IM~
William F aus
Planner III
C:IWPWIN/iOI WPOOCSITMl9600cSILONGMEAOICCCONOlT.MEM
.
.
I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do
t
hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 97-8
is an original
resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular
meeting of said Council held on the
6th
day of January
, 19---2.L..,
at which meeting a quorum was present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this
7th
day of January
(Seal)