Resolution 1999-51
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO, 99-51
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GILROY APPROVING A/S 99-07 (PUD), AN APPLICATION
FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL OF A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) INVOLVING
APPROXIMATELY 8.83 ACRES, APN's 790-16-014, and 790-
16-049.
WHEREAS, Edith Huang ("Applicant") submitted A/S 99-07, an application for
architectural and site approval of a planned unit development ("PUD") for an 8.83 acre parcel
located on the northwest comer of Church Street and Ronan Avenue; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a Negative
Declaration was adopted by the City Council on February 23, 1993, along with a
MitigationIMonitoring program, which included this project in connection with general plan
amendment application GP A 92-03; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed application A/S 99-07 at its duly
noticed public meeting on May 6, 1999, and recommended that the City Council approve
A/S 99-07; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting on May 17, 1999, at
which time the City Council considered the public testimony, the Staff Report dated April 21,
1999, amended on May 10, 1999, and all other documentation related to application A/S 99-
07; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which
constitute the record of proceedings upon which this proj ect approval is based is the office of the
City Clerk.
IKHM1446486.01
97-D60204706002
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 99-51
.
.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. The City Council hereby adopts the following findings as required by Zoning
Ordinance section 50.55 based upon substantial evidence in the record:
1. The project conforms to the site's land use designation on the General
Plan map, and the General Plan standards of development.
2, The project offers single family residential housing to south Santa Clara
County and northern San Benito County, thereby fulfilling a specific need of the
surrounding area.
3. Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed in order to serve
the proposed project are in close proximity.
4. The project provides a harmonious, integrated plan which justifies
exceptions to the normal requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The setback
exception being made is justified by the Applicant's agreement to include quality
architectural design which exceeds minimum requirements for varied elevations,
guest parking bays which exceed the number of stalls required for this project,
decorative entryways, and a private playlot.
5. The project continues the pattern of development in this area. All property
surrounding the project is used for single family residential purposes.
6. The project includes landscaping provisions which will meet or exceed
those required, including landscaping all front yard lots, including street trees
within street tree easements, accent trees, and landscaping between the garages of
all attached dwellings.
IKHM\446486.01
97-060204706002
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. 99-51
.
.
7. The project is harmonious with other developments along Church Street
and Ronan Avenue.
8. Any impacts from traffic congestion, noise, and other adverse effects will
be mitigated to the extent feasible.
9, The project provides adequate access, parking, landscaping, trash and
storage, as necessary.
B. The City Council hereby fmds:
1. The project will not be detrimental to public welfare or mJunous to
persons or property in the vicinity.
2. There is no substantial evidence in the record that this project will have a
significant impact on the environment.
C. AlS 99-07 should be and hereby is approved subject to:
1. The twelve (12) conditions set forth in the Staff Report dated April 21,
1999, amended on May 10, 1999, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by this reference.
2. The MitigationIMonitoring Program, attached hereto as Exhibit B and
II
II
II
II
II
IKHM\446486.01
97-060204706002
-3-
RESOLUTION NO. 99-51
.
.
incorporated herein by this reference.
3. This approval is null and void unless and until the zoning ordinance
approving Z99-01 becomes effective,
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7TH day ofJune, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ARELLANO, GIFFORD, MORALES,
ROWLISON, SPRINGER, SUDOL, and
GILROY
NONE
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NONE
APPROVED:
K,A, Mike Gilroy, Mayor
ATTEST:
,,~
IKHM\446486.01
97-060204706002
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. 99-51
. . EXHIBIT A
Community Development
Planning Division
Staff Memorandum
D'partment
May 10,1999
To:
Jay Baksa, City Administrator
Clare O'Brien, Planner I
A/S 99-07 "Woodside Terrace"
From:
File:
Subject:
Planning Commission action of 5/06/99
BACKGROUND:
At their meeting of May 6, 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed a request for Planned Unit Development
Architectural & Site Review approval to construct 65 dwellings on an 8.83-acre project site zoned RIIR3-PUD
(Single Family Residentia1lMedium Density ResidentiaIlP1anned Unit Development Combining District). This request
represents full buildout of the "Woodside Terrace" project and approved RDO allocations granted by the City
Council under RD 96-02, and as amended by the City Council on December 21, 1998.
The Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation of APPROV AL with 12 conditions to the
City Council by a vote of 5-2-0 as follows:
Ayes: Allen, Collier, Lai, Pinheiro, Puente
Nayes: Gartman, Tucker
Absent: none
Concerns expressed by Commissioners included:
. Reduced front yard setbacks along Church Street and Ronan Avenue may produce negative
visual impacts to surrounding properties.
. House sizes may be too large for proposed lot sizes.
NEEDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council review the attached staff report and Planning Commission
recommendation to approve this Architectural & Site Review request.
Respectfully,
~~
Clare O'Brien
Planner I
:szrr.A ,I.
.
.
AlS 99-07 - PUD
2
4/21/99
CONFORMANCE OF REOUEST WITH GENERAL PLAN:
The proposed project conforms to the land use designation for the property on the General Plan map, and
is generally consistent with the intent of the text of the General Plan document.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project by one of the City's independent environmental
consultants (EMC Planning Group) in December, 1992. The study was completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and reflects the independent judgement of the City. 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 15 mitigation measures (attached) was adopted by the City
Council on February 22, 1993. Staffhas subsequently reviewed this Initial Study in conjunction with the
proposed project (AlS 99-07) and finds that the proposed project is substantially consistent with this prior
approved environmental documentation, There is no substantial evidence that the proposed project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
PRIOR PROJECT APPROVALS:
GPA 92-03
On February 22, 1993, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment request to amend the General
Plan from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 3.74 acres.
RDO BACKGROUND:
RD 96-02
The applicant received Residential Development Ordinance (RDO) approval for the subject project,
"Woodside Terrace", during the 1996 RDO Competition (RD 96-02). Ul\der this request, the project was
given full buildout approval for 66 total dwelling units over a two year period, 1998 and 1999. Specifically
the project was allocated 20 detached single family dwellings and 46 townhouses.
RD 96-02 - Project Amendment
On December 21, 1998, the City Council approved a project modification request for the Woodside Terrace
project. Under this request, the applicant received approval to modifY the project to include 40 detached
single family dwellings and 26 "duets", or attached single family dwellings, The project modification also
included private interior streets and a more even distribution of attached and detached products.
RELATED APPLICATIONS:
Z 99-01
Accompanying this Tentative Map request, the applicant is requesting Zone Change approval from R1
(Single Family Residential) and R3 (Medium Density Residential) to R11R3-PUD (Single Family
Residential/Medium Density ResidentiallPlanned Unit Development).
TM 97-05
Accompanying this Planned Unit Development Architectural & Site Review request, the applicant is
requesting Tentative Map approval to subdivide 8.83 acres into 65 single family lots, with two (2) common
lots.
.
.
AlS 99-07 - PUD
4
4/21/99
public-right-of-way, !he maximum allowable buildout for this project area under current zoning is 104 units,
or an overall density of 15 dwelling units per net acre (44 units plus 60 units, with 2.93 net acres under R3
zoning and 3.99 net acres under Rl zoning). As submitted, !he 65-unit Woodside Terrace project represents
an overall project density of 9.39 dwelling units per net acre, consistent wi!h the City's Zoning Ordinance.
This density is evenly distributed throughout !he site.
(ID Streets:
PrimaI)' access to the development will be provided from two existing public streets: Church Street to the
east and Ronan Avenue to !he south. Access will also be provided via a new public street to !he west, to be
constructed in part, as part of this project. Private roads which serve the interior lots of !he subdivision will
have driveway aprons with decorative enttyway features. A combination of public and private sidewalks
will serve residents throughout the development site. The proposed street alignments are consistent with
minimum City Development standards.
@) Setbacks:
Staffhas worked with the applicant to maintain appropriate City setback requirements along the perimeter
of !he Planned Unit Development site. In addition, staffhas required that all driveways include a miiumum
of 20 feet in length to ensure adequate parking and back-up space for tenants. The applicant is proposing
!he following exceptions to City setback requirements within the PUD: a) 5-foot side yard setbacks for all
units; b) 14Y:z -foot rear yard setbacks for ten units (plan 4 only); and b) various front yard setbacks to living
areas and structures (see below):
City Setback
Requirements Propoled Setbacks Encroacbment Impact to PUD
SIDE YARD: 6 feet Sfeet I foot all units
REAR YARD: 15 feet 14.5 feet 0.5 foot PIan 4 only (10 units)
18-19.3 feet to living area 0.7 -2feet Perimeter Lots:
FRONT YARD: 20 feet 14-18 feet to structure 2-6 feet fronting public streets
17.5-18.3 feet to living area 1.7-2.5 feet Interior Lots:
12.5-18 feet to structure 2-7.5 feet fronting private streets
The applicant will provide several amenities in exchange for flexibility in setback requirements. Amenities
include quality architectural design which exceeds minimum requirements for varied elevations, guest
parking bays which exceed the number of stalls required for this project, decorative enttyways, additional
landscaping, and a private playlot. Staff feels that, although the proposed setbacks are not in strict "
compliance with !he Zoning Ordinance, !hey meet 1he intent of 1he PUD concept, particularly when reviewed
with project amenities.
<ID Common Areas:
Two (2) common lots are proposed in this project. These areas are intended for private streets, guest parking
bays, landscaped areas, and a playlot. Guest parking bays are provided throughout the development in two
forms: parallel on-street parking and perpendicular off-street parking. As submitted, the project includes
23 on-street parking spaces and 12 off-street parking spaces, wi1h one van accessible stall.
.
.
AlS 99-07 - PUD
6
4/21/99
FINDINGS:
In order to grant Planned Unit Development (POO) approval, the Planning Commission and City Council
must find that the proposed Planned Unit Development will:
A. Conform to the Gilroy General Plan in terms 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;
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:
Staffreconunends that the Planning Conunissionforward a ret:Onunendation of APPROVAL of this Planned
Unit Development Architectural and Site Review request to the City Countil for the following reasons:
A. The proposed project is generally consistent with the approvals granted to the developer by the City
Council under Residential Development Ordinance RD 96-02, as amended December 21,1998;
B. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the City's General Plan
document;
C. The proposed project is consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the request
to reduce side, rear and front yard setbacks. This exception can be justified by the developer's __.
agreement to include the following amenities: quality architectural design which exceeds minimum ..
requirements for varied elevations, guest parking bays which exceed the number of stalls required for
this project, decorative entryways, additional landscaping, and a private playlot;
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 mitigation
measures to be applied;
.
.
AlS 99-07 - PUD
g
4/21/99
10, 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.
11. All improvements are to be done per City of Gilroy Standards, subject to the review and approval of the
Engineering Division.
12. 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 review and approval of the Engineering Division.
. Respectfully,
~
illiam Faus
Planning Division Manager
j
.
.
J
EXHIBIT B
. -
J
Huang General Plan Amendment Initial Study
Mitigation Monitoring Program
]
]
Introduction
.,
~
I
)
~l
..i
:I
]
;~
On January I, 1989, the California State Legislature passed into law Assembly
Bill 3180, This bill requires public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring
programs when they approve projects subject to an environmental impact report
or a negative declaration that includes mitigation measures to avoid significant
adverse environmental effects. The reporting or monitoring program is to be
designed to ensure compliance with conditions of project approval during project
implementation in order to avoid significant adverse environmental effects.
The law was passed in response to historic non-implementation of mitigation
measures presented in environmental documents and subsequently adopted as
conditions of project approval. In addition, monitoring ensures that mitigation
measures are implemented and thereby provides a mechanism to evaluate the
effectiveness of the mitigation measures.
I
]
"
!
.~
..
~
J
_I
,
i
~
'j
j
1
I
~
A definitive set of project conditions would include enough detailed information
and enforcement procedures to ensure the measure's compliance. This monitor-
ing program is designed to provide a mechanism to ensure that mitigation mea-
sures and subsequent conditions of project approval are implemented.
Monitoring Program
The basis for this monitoring program is the mitigation measures included in the
initial study. These mitigation measures are designed to eliminate or reduce
significant adverse environmental effects to levels of insignificance. These
mitigation measures become conditions of project approval which the project
proponent is required to complete during and after implementation of the
proposed project.
The attached checklist (Attachments A and B) is proposed for monitoring the
implementation of the mitigation measures. This monitoring checklist will
contain all appropriate mitigation measures contained in the initial study.
}
\
f
'.--
Monitoring Program Procedures
It is recommended that the City of Gilroy utilize the attached monitoring
checklist for the proposed project The monitoring program should be imple-
mented as follows:
1. The City of Gilroy Planning Director should be responsible for
coordination of the monitoring program, including the monitoring
checklist. The Planning Director should be responsible for completing the
monitoring checklist and distributing the checklist to the responsible
individuals or. agencies for their use in monitoring the mitigation
measures.
2. Each responsible individual or agency will then be responsible for deter-
mining whether the mitigation measures contained in the monitoring
checklist have been complied with. Once all mitigation measures have
been complied with, the responsible individual or agency should submit a
copy of the monitoring checklist to the City of Gilroy Planning Director to
be placed in the project file. If the mitigation measure has not been
complied with, the monitoring checklist should not be retumed to the
Planning Director.
3. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the Planning Director should
review the checklist to ensure that all mitigation measures and additional
conditions of project approval included in the monitoring checklist have
been complied with. An occupancy permit should not be issued until all
mitigation measures and additional conditions. of project approval
included in the !llonitoring checklist have been complied with.
4. If a responsible individual or agency determines that a non-compliance
has occurred, a written notice should be delivered by certified mail to the
project proponent within 10 days, with a copy to the Planning Director,
describing the non-compliance and requiring compliance within a specified
period of time. Ifa non-compliance still exists at the expiration of the spec-
ified period of time, construction may be halted and fines may be imposed
at the discretion of the City of Gilroy.
.
..
Prior to issuance of Occupancy, the following mitigation shall be implemented:
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Huang General Plan Amendment Initial Study (92-03)
Mitigation Nature of Mitigation
Number
Party
Responsible for Party Responsible for
Implementation Monitoring
6 Installation ofbicvcle racks
Develo er City Planning Decartment
I
I
~
.
i
~
.
.
.
.
r
.
.
.
'c,
.
.
.
f
.
.
;
)
MlTIGATIONMONITOmNGPROGRAMCHECKL~T
]
J
l
.
~
]
J
Huang General Plan Amendment Initial Study (92-03)
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the following mitigations shall be
implemented:
Party
Mitigation Nature of Mitigation Responsible for Party Responsible for
Number Implementation Monitoring
1 Preliminary soils investigation Developer City Department of Public
Works
2 Hydrology study and storm drain Developer City Department of Public
improvement desilms Works
3 Finish floor elevations to be at Developer City Building Department
least one foot above 100-year
flood elevation
4 Payment of citywide traffic Developer City Department of Public
impact fee Works
5 Street design improvements Developer City Department of Public
. Works
7 Provision of minimum off-street Developer City Planning Department
I parkin!!' reouired
8&9 Payment of public safety impact Developer City Department of Public
fees Works
10 Negotiate with school district for Developer City Planning Department
payment of additional school
impact fees
11 Payment of parks and recreation Developer City Department of Parks
impact fees and Recreation
12 Payment of water service impact Developer City Department of Public
fees Works
13 Cap all existing on-site wells Developer City Department of Public
Works
14 Payment of sewer service impact Developer City Department of Public
fees Works
15 Archaeological (cultural) Developer City Planning Department
lan17na17e in all permits
~
,
j
'i
.'
i
.~
I
J
1
;
,
1
1
I
~
-.,
.
.
. ,
I, RHONDA PELLIN, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certifY that the attached
Resolution No. 99-51 is an original resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy
at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of June, 1999, 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 23rd day of June, 1999.
(Seal)