Resolution 2003-25
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GILROY APPROVING TM 02-07, A TENTATIVE MAP TO
SUBDIVIDE AN APPROXIMATELY 6 ACRE SITE INTO 31
RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED AT 8496 AND 8530 KERN
A VENUE, APNS 790-20-065, 067, 078.
WHEREAS, Mission Valley Properties, the applicant, submitted TM 02-07, requesting a
tentative map to subdivide an approximately 6 acre site into thirty-one (31) lots, located at 8496
and 8530 Kern Avenue, APNs 790-20-065, 067; 078; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City
prepared and circulated for public comment a mitigated Negative Declaration for this
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 6,
2003, at which time the Planning Commission considered the public testimony, the Staff Report
dated February 24, 2003 ("Staff Report"), and all other documentation related to application
TM 02-07, and recommended that the City Council approve Alternative #2 of said application with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 17, 2003, at
which time the City Council considered the public testimony, the Staff Report, and all other
documentation related to application TM 02-07; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that thirty-nine (39) conditions should be
incorporated into the project as proposed by staff; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City Council on March 17, 2003, adopted the
mitigated Negative Declaration dated December 13,2002, and revised January 14, 2003, deleting
\GBO\584026.1
032503-04706002
-1-
Resolution No. 2003-25
the original mitigation measure 8 as requiring the same result as mitigation measure 7 regarding
storm water management practices, the City Council finding that the mitigated Negative
Declaration was completed in compliance with CEQA, that it reflects the independent judgment
of the City, and that there is no substantial evidence that the project as mitigated will have a
significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which
constitute the record of proceedings upon which this project 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 land use designation and the intent of the
goals and policies of the General Plan.
2. The project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, the City's
Subdivisions and Land Development Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act.
3. Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed to serve the
proposed project are in close proximity.
4. The project is consistent with surrounding development.
5. There is no substantial evidence in the entire record that the project as
mitigated will cause a significant environment effect.
6. There are no facts to support the findings requiring denial of the proposed
tentative map pursuant to California Government Code section 66474.
\GB0\584026.1
032503-04706002
-2-
Resolution No. 2003-25
B. Tentative Map TM 02-07 Alternative #2 should be and hereby is approved,
subject to the thirty-nine (39) conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the mitigation
measures and MitigationIMonitoring program attached hereto as Exhibit B, both attachments
incorporated herein by this reference.
This Resolution shall not become effective unless and until Z 03-01, Ordinance No.
2003-03 is approved and takes effect, and TM 02-07 is not approved unless and until Ordinance
No. 2003-03 is approved and effective.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of April, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ARELLANO, DILLON, GARTMAN,
MORALES, PINHEIRO, VELASCO and
SPRINGER
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NONE
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NONE
APPROVED:
-?1c!>n-4 tv ~-
Thomas W. Springer, May& -
\GBO\584026.1
032503-04706002
-3-
Resolution No. 2003-25
EJ<HiB.i.=
>'~
f~f!!"
Community Development Department
Planning Division (408) 846-0440
Zone Change, Tentative Map
Architectural & Site Review (PUD)
February 24, 2003
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
Z 03-01 (03010027), TM 02-07 (02100009), PUD A/S 02-27 (02100008)
Mission VaUey Properties I Steve Riter (925) 467-9900
LOCATION: 8496 and 8530 Kern Avenue
STAFF PLANNER: Gregg Polubinsky, gpolubinsky@ci.gilroy.ca.us
REOUESTED ACTIONS:
Z 03-01
Zone Cban2e request to rezone 6z acres from R1 to R1-PUD
Staff recommends approval of this request.
TM 02-07 Tentative MaD request to subdivide a 6z acres into 31 residential lots and a
private park site.
Staff recommends approval of this request with 39 conditions.
A/S 02-27
Planned Unit Development review of a 31-lot residential subdivision.
Staff recommends approval of this request with 14 conditions.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
Parcel Number:
Parcel Size:
Flood Zone:
790-20-065, -067 and -078
261,360 SF (6 acres)
"X", Panel #060340 OOOlD Revised: 8/17/98
, '
Z 03-01, TM 02-07, AS 02-27
2
2/24/03
STATUS OF PROPERTY:
Existin2 Land Use
Two residential homes
General Plan Desi2nation
Low Density Residential
Zonin2
I
RI
STATUS OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
Existin2 Land Use General Plan Desi2nation Zonin2
North: Residential homes Low Density Residential RI
East: Residential homes Low Density Residential RI
South: Residential homes Low Density Residential RI
West: Residential homes Low Density Residential RI-PUD
BACKGROUND:
On August 3,2001, the Historic Heritage Committee approved, by not raising any objections to, the
Applicant's request to allow demolition of the homes at 8495 and 8530 Kern Avenue.
RD 01-08 The Applicant was granted Residential Development Ordinance approval for 31 residential
units consisting of27 single family homes and four duette homes on 6 acres. This application is consistent
with the RDO approval showing an entranceway element, a small children's play area with amenities and a
linear landscaped area all adding to the feel of a well landscaped neighborhood.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
An Initial Study was prepared for the project by EMC Planning Group, an independent consultant, in December
2002. The study was completed in compliance with CEQA Guidelines and reflects the independent judgment
of the City. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, the applicant has
agreed to the incorporation of 8 mitigation measures that will avoid or mitigate the effects to a level of
insignificance. A Negative Declaration, dated December 13, 2002, and Mitigation Monitoring Program were
prepared and were posted for a 20-day period. There is no substantial evidence that the proposed project, as
mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment.
It needs to be noted that there was one comment raised by the Applicant's Engineer [concerning Mitigation
Measure #8] during circulation of the Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Staff agreed
with the comment and the original Mitigation Measure #8 was deleted. Mitigation Measure #8 required a
specific management practice to filter urban pollutants from storm water. After discussion, it was felt that
Mitigation Measure #7 required the same results but allowed the Applicant flexibility in which of the many
suitable management practices to use. Mitigation Measure #7 will be subject to the review and approval of the
Engineering Division.
. .
Z 03-01, TM 02-07, AS 02-27
3
2/24/03
CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed project conforms to the land use designation on the General Plan map and is generally
consistent with the intent of the General Plan document for residential uses. The following examples
demonstrate this conformance:
Policy 1.01 Pattern of Development: Ensure an orderly, contiguous pattern of development
that prioritizes infill development, phases new development, encourages
compactness and efficiency. . .
Policy 12.03 Residential Street Design: Design street systems in residential areas to encourage
direct connections between neighborhoods; to encourage internal movement by
bicycling and walking; and to provide safer and quieter neighborhoods.
The proposed project is in conformance with these policies. This property is already located within the
incorporated City limits, it is immediately adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods and the smaller
project streets promote slower traffic and bicycling and walking.
ANALYSIS OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST
Section 50.51, of the Zoning Ordinance allows for Planned Unit Development approval if the following
definition is met:
(a) Land which is planned and developed as a whole.
(b) A single development operation or a definitely programmed series of development operations,
including all lands and buildings.
( c) Including principal and accessory structures and uses substantially related to the character of the
surrounding district.
(d) A program of comprehensive and detailed plans which will include all site and architectural
design plans.
( e) A program that should include the operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that
will be for common use and benefit by some or all of the occupants of the development, but in
most cases not to be provided, operated or maintained at the general expense of the City of
Gilroy.
Staff believes that the proposed project meets the definition of a Planned Unit Development.
The applicant requests Zone Change approval to rezone this 6:1: acre site from R1 (Single Family Residential) to
R1-PUD (Single Family Residential- Planned Unit Development). Ifapproved, the proposed Planned Unit
Development (PUD) combining district will allow the applicant flexibility with City standards in developing this
site. The applicant proposes to use this flexibility to develop 27 detached homes on lots less than 6,000 square
feet, 4 duette units, and to provide reduced setbacks. The Planned Unit Development zoning overlay will also
permit a private park on this site.
Z 03-01, TM 02-07, AS 02-27
4
2/24/03
The Planned Unit Development Combining District Statement of Intent (Zoning Ordinance section 26.10)
states:
"The intent of the PUD Planned Unit Development Combining District is to allow diVersification in
the relationships of buildings, structures, and open spaces in building groups and the allowable
heights of said buildings and structures, while insuring adequate standards related to the public
health, safety and general welfare of the community, and so doing to promote unified planning and
development, economical and efficient land use, a higher standard of amenities, appropriate and
harmonious variety in physical development, creative design, and an upgrading of the urban
environment. "
The Tentative Map and PUD Architectural & Site review portions ofthis staff report will analyze this project's
compliance with the PUD Statement ofIntent and all necessary PUD findings. Concurrent processing ofthe
Zone Change, Tentative Map and Architectural & Site Review applications allows a comprehensive review of
the overall development plan, thereby enabling a holistic approach to project approval.
ZONE CHANGE RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to the City
Council for this Zone Change request based on the above Staff analysis. The following findings support this
recommendation:
A. The proposed zone change is consistent with the site's land use designation on the General Plan
map.
B. The proposed zone change is consistent with the intent of the General Plan text.
C. The proposal will not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to persons or property in the
vicinity.
D. There will be no significant impacts as a result of this project.
ANALYSIS OF TENTATIVE MAP REQUEST
Mission Park is designed as a 31-unit residential Planned Unit Development. The project is comprised of
private streets with an entry feature and active and passive open space. Overall project density is 5.2 units
per acre; this is a density less than the 7.25 units per acre that the Single Family Residential (Rl) zoning
district allows. The 31 parcels range in size from 3,470 square feet, which is a duette parcel, to 8,000
square feet.
Street parking on private streets has been a concern of Staff during project review. Each home-site will
have its required parking of two garage spaces retained on its own parcel. In some instances there is a
third garage space. The Applicant has also provided for 27 parking spaces on the street (0.87 spaces per
unit) spread throughout the project. This exceeds a City parking standard for multifamily housing of one
guest parking space per four dwelling units (0.25 space per unit).
, .
Z 03-01, TM 02-07, AS 02-27
5
2/24/03
Neighborhood Meeting
The Applicant held a neighborhood meeting at Rod Kelley School on January 9,2003, to explain their
project to the adjacent neighbors. Approximately eight neighbors attended to review the project and offer
their critique and concerns. The four most important objections that the neighbors had:
~ There is a need to raise the ground level on this project so that surface water flows to Kern
Avenue. The result is that there are retaining walls to be constructed that will raise the ground
level from 2 to 3 1/2 feet in some places plus a six foot fence on top of the walL
Any project in this location would have the same requirement. This requirement cannot be
overcome through redesign.
~ The neighbors on the north side of the project would like to see the main, connecting street
reversed so that it is on the south side of the project
According to the Applicant's Civil Engineer, this could be obtained but it would require raising the
retaining wall an additional two feet to 2 to 5 ~ feet over a greater perimeter of the project.
~ The change in grade between existing neighborhood homes and the new construction will
create back-ta-back fences at two different levels with the top of the existing home'sfence
being in some cases 2 to 3 ~ feet lower than the new fence.
Condition #3 and #4 listed below have been added to address the neighbor's concerns.
~ The proposed Tentative Map showed on-street parking against the north property line.
Adjacent neighbors felt that street parking immediately behind their homes would be intrusive,
noise generating and difficult for them to police or regulate.
The Applicant has provided two alternative designs, Alternative # 1 that was acceptable to staff and
included as the recommended layout and Alternative #2 that was more acceptable to the neighbors.
i\lternative # 1. This is the site layout that is included ','lith this packet. Parking was remo',ed
from being immediately adjacent to the northern neighbors and the same
consideration ',vas aUo'.ved for the neighbors on the south. This alternative
shov:s 27 street parking spaces lowering the street parking ratio from 1.1 per
unit to 0.87 per unit. It also narrov.'s the linear park amenity, although the
linear park still serves as a landscaped entry feature.
Alternative #2. This is the alternative preferred by the northern neighbors who were the main
attendees of the neighborhood meeting. This alternative moves the northern
parking to the south and interior side of the street as in Alternate # 1 above.
This alternative also preserves a I3-foot landscaped buffer against the northern
property boundary. This 13-foot buffer is achievable because the parking on
the south side of the project remains against the south project boundary. Staff
did not find this acceptable because what was a concern on the north boundary,
should also be a concern on the south boundary..
, .
Z 03-01, TM 02-07, AS 02-27
6
2/24/03
TENTATIVE MAP RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to the City
Council for this Tentative Map based on the above Staff analysis. Staff further recommends that
Altc1'lfRtil'e # 1 be lldopted in that it does not reduce street parking below what '.\'ould be acceptable and that
the parking layout is considerate of both the northern and southern neighbors. There are 39 conditions attached
to the Tentative Map approval of this request.
This recommendation is made for the following reasons:
A The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the City's
General Plan document.
B. The proposed development is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the City's Subdivision and
Land Development Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act.
C. Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed in order to serve the proposed project are in
close proximity.
D. There will be no significant environmental impacts as a result of this project due to the required
mitigation measures to be applied.
E. The proposed project is consistent with surrounding development.
TENTATIVE MAP CONDITIONS:
Plannin2 Division (contact Gre22 Polubinskv 408-846-0440)
These conditions are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division.
1. MITIGATION MEASURES #1 through #8 contained within the Negative Declaration dated
December 13, 2002, and revised January 14, 2003, for Mission Park Tentative Map for the
subject project (Mission Park), shall be applied to the approval of this Tentative Map 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).
2. 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, and 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.
3. The retaining wall and fence around the outside boundary of the project will be constructed on the
Mission Park property. Mission Park shall negotiate with each neighbor to insure that Mission Park's
fence will be the only remaining fence or that the neighbor has chosen for their existing fence to remain,
in which case any gap between the two fences will be closed at the top of the lower fence by Mission
Park.
. .
Z 03-01, TM 02-07, AS 02-27
7
2/24/03
4. All newly constructed fence on the project perimeter will be a "good neighbor" fence meaning at the
least, each adjacent fence panel will alternate facing in and then out. This does not preclude a double-
faced fence.
En2ineerin2 Division (contact Kristi Abrams 408-846-0450)
These conditions are subject to the review and approval of the Engineering Division.
5. File a Final Map.
6. Submit improvement plans for on-site and off-site (use City standards).
7. Submit a grading plan.
8. Submit a soils report.
9. Submit a hazard Material clearance for the underground tank removal.
10. Submit an Erosion Control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
11. Retaining walls are to be of masonry construction and require a building permits.
12. All utilities, to, through and on the site shall be constructed underground, in accordance with Municipal
Code Section 21. 120.
13. Installation of underground utility lines, etc.: exceptions. New and existing utility lines, appurtenances
and associated equipment, including, but not limited to, electrical transmission, street lighting, and cable
television and telephone shall be required to be placed underground as required in Article V of this
chapter starting with section 21.111 (Ord. #81-11, & 1,3-16-81; Ord. #89-17, & 1, 10-16-89).
14. Pad for trash receptacles shall be provided off private streets.
15. City checkprint must be returned with revisions.
16. For any necessary off-site dedications and/or easements to the City of Gilroy required by the roadway
and/or utility main design, the developer shall pay all the costs of any land purchase for the ultimate
right-of-way and easements. The developer shall, within 21 days after City Council approval of the
Tentative Map, deposit the estimated cost of all condemnation expenses with the City of Gilroy's
Community Development Department. All costs of the condemnation procedure shall be paid for the
developer. All easements and right-of-ways must be dedicated and/or deeded to the City of Gilroy
before Final Map approval.
17. The developer shall pay aU the costs of any land purchase for the ultimate right-of-way and easements
and secondary access. The developer shall, within 21 days after City Council approval of the tentative
map, deposit the estimated cost of all condemnation expenses with the City of Gilroy's Engineering
Division. All easements and rights-of-way must be dedicated and/or deeded to the City of Gilroy prior
to final map approval.
Z 03-01, TM 02-07, AS 02-27
8
2/24/03
18. Prior to City Council approval of the Tract Map and Improvement Plans, the following items shall be
completed by the applicant and/or developer: A signed original composite plan by the electrical design
engineer shall be a part of the improvement plans; and I
a. A letter from the subdivision design civil engineer shall be prepared which states that the
composite plan agrees with City Codes and Standards and that no underground utility
conflict exists; and
b. "Will Serve Letters" from each utility company for the subdivision shall be supplied to the
City; and
c. The City will collect the plan check and inspection fee for the utility underground work.
19. Prior to any construction of the utilities in the field, the applicant and/or developer shall submit the
following items to the City Engineering Division for review and approval:
a. A signed and PG&E approved original eleCtric plan; and
b. A letter from the design civil engineer that states that electrical plans conform to City Codes
and Standards, and with the approved subdivision improvement plans.
20. 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.
21. The developer shall provide full street, curb, gutter, sidewalk and electrolier improvements.
22. 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.
23. All retaining walls must be constructed of permanent poured concrete or concrete masonry unit; wood
shall not be permitted.
24. The developer shall provide joint trench composite plans for the underground electrical, gas, telephone,
cable television, and communication conduits and cables including the size, location and details of all
trenches, locations of building utility service stubs and meters and placements or arrangements of
junction structures as a part of the Improvement Plan submittals for the project. The composite
drawings and/or utility improvement plans shall be designed by a licensed civil engineer.
25. The developer shall negotiate rights-of-way with Pacific Gas and Electric and other utilities subject to
the review and approval by the Engineering Division and the utility companies.
26. The Engineering Division shall approve all hydrant locations and water main sizing prior to building
permit issuance. Equipment and staffing shall be provided for watering of all exposed or disturbed soil
surfaces at least twice daily. An appropriate dust palliative or suppressant, added to water before
application, shall be utilized, subject to review and approval by the Building, Life, and Environmental
Safety Division.
27. The developer shall submit improvement plans with the Final Map submittal.
28. The developer shall submit an estimate of the probable cost of off-site improvements with the final
Map submittal.
29. The developer shall submit fees and bonds and enter into an improvement agreement prior to final Map
recordation.
. .
Z 03-01, TM 02-07, AS 02-27
9
2/24/03
30. All existing water wells shall be sealed to meet the approval of the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD) and shall also meet the approval of the City Engineer.
Community Services Department (contact Todd Barreras 408-846-0460)
These conditions are subject to the review and approval of the Community Services Department.
31. Street trees shall be required according to the City's Consolidated Landscape Policy. Contact the
Community Services Department for requirements on placement, species and maintenance. A street
tree permit shall be obtained prior to obtaining a building permit.
Fire Marshal (contact J. Bretschneider at 846-0430)
These conditions are subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshal.
32. Street Hydrants shall be spaced every 300 feet.
33. On-site hydrants shall be provided within 150 feet of any portion of a building. Each parcel shall have
its own connection to the public water main for its hydrant and fire sprinkler water supply. Large
complexes shall have looped fire water systems. Hydrants, FDC and PIV to be at locations approved
by the Fire Marshal. FDC' s shall be within 40 feet of a hydrant and hydrant to be on the same side of
the fire access road as the FDC.
34. Roadways and driveways shall provide a minimum 20 feet of unobstructed travel. Turns shall provide
an inside turning radius of39 feet. No parking zones signage and curb painting shall be maintained in
good condition.
35. Drivable access shall be provided within 150 feet of any building pad. Access completely around
buildings is desirable. Dead end streets or access in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with a turn.
En2ineerin2 Division. in concert with the Santa Clara Vallev Water District (contact Neddal Ali-
Adeeb at Communitv Proiects Review Unit 408-265-2607 ext 2283)
These conditions are subject to the review and approval of the City of Gilroy and SCVWD File #29317.
36. Development on the site disturbs more than 5 acres. The developer may be required to file a Notice of
Intent with the State Water Resources C~ntrol Board in compliance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with construction
activity.
37. The site is not adjacent to a District facility; therefore, a District permit in accordance with District
Ordinance 83-2 is not required for improvements to the site.
38. Post construction water quality mitigation needs to be implemented. The design of the site should
incorporate water quality mitigation measures such as those found in "Start at the Source, Design
Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection," prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater
Management Agencies Association.
39. In accordance with District Ordinance 90-1, the owner should show any existing wells on the plans.
The wells should be properly registered with the District and either be maintained or abandoned in
accordance with District standards. Property owners or their representative should call the Wells and
Water Production Unit at (408) 265-2607, extension 2660, for more information regarding well permits
and registration or abandonment of any wells.
, .
Z 03-01, TM 02-07, AS 02-27
10
2/24/03
ANALYSIS OF ARCHITECTURAL & SITE REVIEW (PUD)
I
The Applicant is requesting Planned Unit Development Architectural & Site review for the approval of 31
single-family homes on this 6:f: acre project site. The project is comprised of27 single-family detached homes
with 4 duette units. The property has two existing homes which will be demolished. The specific
considerations of this project are as follows:
Lot size exception
The thirty-one total parcels are sized as follows:
);- Twenty single-family home parcels, (65% of the project) which range in size from 4,920 square feet
to 5,690 square feet; and
);- seven single-family home parcels (21% of the project) which exceed 6,000 square feet, and
);- four duet parcels (14% of the project) ranging in size from 3,470 to 4,880 square feet.
Setback exception
Fifteen foot rear yard and 6 foot side yard setbacks adjacent to the project perimeter (adjacent to the
existing single-family neighborhoods) are being observed. This insures that no existing neighbor will be
adjacent to new construction that has had their setbacks reduced through the PUD. Interior parcels do
have setback reductions through the Architectural & Site Review (PUD) approval.
Staff proposes as part of this PUD approval that covered patios be allowed to intrude into the rear yard
setback by five feet. This allows covered outdoor living space that would otherwise be denied because
of the smaller lot sizes.
Street standard exception
The applicant has proposed private streets. Private streets allow the Applicant to propose a project
design that allows 31 residential units at a housing density of 5.16 units per acre. The R1 density
standard is 7 Y-i units per acre. The Applicant proposes 27 street parking spaces distributed throughout
the project. This is in addition to all required parking which is on-site at each home.
Architectural Desi2n
The Applicant has provided two-story architectural elevations that are visually appealing both from the
front and from the sides and rear elevations. There are three models of homes plus the duette model. Each
house has a Craftsman style elevation with changing rooflines and changing materials. Colors will be muted
natural colors varying with the specific model. Each house has a minimum two car garage. The applicant
also proposes that eight of the homes will contain an attached "Accessory Dwelling Unit" per City
Standards. The duet homes and the homes with Accessory Dwelling Units are expected to provide a more
affordable housing option.
Z 03-01, TM02-07, AS 02-27
11
2/24/03
Provision of Amenities
The Planned Unit Development (PUD) Combining District Statement ofIntent (Zoning Ordinance section
26.10) requires projects within a PUD "... to promote unified planning and development, economical and
efficient land use, a higher standard of amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety in physical
development, creative design, and an upgrading of the urban environment." The applicant has proposed
the following amenities to meet this requirement:
~ The provision of 0.45 acres (7.5 %) of open space
~ A small children's playlot
~ A picnic table and BBQ
~ An entry arbor
FINDINGS:
In order to approve a Planned Unit Development, Zoning Ordinance Section 50.55 requires the Planning
Commission and City Council to find that the proposed Planned Unit Development will:
A. Conform to the Gilroy General Plan in terms of general location and standards of development;
This project conforms 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;
This project will improve Kern Avenue along its frontage. There will also be a mix of housing
(12% duettes and 26% with Accessory Dwelling Units) which will make some homes more
affordable.
C. Not require urban services beyond those which are currently available;
All services are currently in place on Kern Avenue.
D. Provide a harmonious, integrated plan which justifies exceptions, if such are required, to the
normal requirements of this ordinance;
The Applicant has worked with Staff to propose a quality development that is consistent with the
constraints of the property and City standards and policies.
E. Reflect an economical and efficient pattern of land uses;
This project is an infill development in an area completely surrounded by existing single-family
homes.
F Include greater provisions for landscaping and open space than would generally be required;
As a result of the constraints on the property and the use of the PUD flexibility, the Applicant is
providing open space in the form of a tot-lot and landscaping as well as an entryway arbor and
landscaping.
G. Utilize aesthetic design principles to create attractive buildings and open space areas that blend with
the character of surrounding areas;
These are market rate single-family homes which because of the siteing requirements will provide a
development that uses design principles to create an attractive development.
Z 03-01, TM 02-07, AS 02-27
12
2/24/03
H. Not create traffic congestion, noise, odor or other adverse effects on surrounding areas; and
Kern Avenue is well designed to accommodate the increased traffic from these homes.
I
I. Provide adequate access, parking, landscaping, trash areas and storage, as necessary.
The provision of three private streets and turning housing away from the street accomplish this
objective.
ARCHITECTURAL & SITE REVIEW (PUD) RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to the City
Council for this Planned Unit Development Architectural & Site review subject to the following 14 conditions:
ARCHITECTURAL & SITE REVIEW (PUD) CONDITIONS:
Planning Division (contact Gregg Polubinsky at 846-0440)
These conditions are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division.
1. A covered patio structure is permitted to encroach into the rear yard setback by a maximum of 5 feet.
2. An RDO Performance Agreement must be completed prior to the completion of any Final Map.
3. At the time of Building Permit submittal all of the following Conditions of this Staff Report will be
listed on the construction drawings in a prominent place at the front of the drawing set.
4. This Architectural & Site Review application is good for one year from the date of approval. The
Planning Director may approve a one year extension upon written request prior to expiration.
5. Landscaping will be reviewed and approved for the small child play area, entrywayand linear park prior
to building permit approval.
6. Plans for new landscaping including specifications for an irrigation system shall be approved by the
Planning Division in accordance with the adopted Consolidated Landscaping Policy, prior to issuance
of a building permit. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in an orderly, live, healthy, and
relatively weed-free condition, in accordance with the adopted Consolidated Landscape Policy, and the
approved specific landscape plan. Developer wiJI be reauired to specify a species oftree in the 13
foot landscape butTer with a more substantial hei2ht and spread at maturity than presentlv
shown on plans.
7. Trash pads will be supplied for all homes.
8. Building colors shall be complimentary throughout the subdivision.
9. All construction activity is restricted to the following hours: 7AM to 7PM weekdays, 9AM to 7PM
Saturdays and City holidays, no construction activity is allowed on Sundays.
10. If mechanical equipment is located on the roof of a building an architectural feature of the building shall
screen it, such that it cannot be seen from ground level at the far side of the adjacent public right-of-
way.
Community Services Department (contact Todd Barreras 408-846-0460)
These conditions are subject to the review and approval of the Community Services Department.
11. Street trees are required under the City's Street Tree Policy. Contact the Community Services
City of Gilroy
Community Development Department
BLES Division - Building
408 846-0430 - Fax: 408 846-0429
Owner: Mission Park
Project address: 8530 Kern Ave.
Scope of Work: 31-Unit Residential Subdivision
Planning #: 02100008
Date: February 4, 2003
Plan checker: Alan Low
The Building Division has performed a cursory review of preliminary plans submitted to the
Planning Division for the application noted above. The plans will require compliance with the
following informational items and conditions of approval at the time of building pennit
submittal:
CONDITIONS:
1. DESIGN PROFESSIONAL -This project will require a State of California registered design
professional to design, stamp and wet sign the construction plans.
2. BUILDING CODES - All construction shall comply with Building, Mechanical, Plumbing,
Electrical, T-24 Energy and Accessibility, and City codes in effect at the time of issuance of
the building permits resulting in actual construction.
. Distance to property lines? .
. Type of Construction?
. Occupancy?
· Show the location of all entrances and exits.
. Locate all utilities on site plan.
3. SOILS REPORT - A soils report shall be submitted containing design recommendations for
footings, retaining walls, and make provisions for anticipated differential settlement.
4. FOUNDATIONS - All mitigation measures and design recommendations identified in the
soils report approved by the Building Official, MUST be reviewed by the soils engineer of
record for conformance. Structural foundation design plans must also be reviewed by the
soils Engineer of record for conformance to recommendations contained within the soils
report.
5. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS - Prior to requesting a Building Department foundation
inspection, the soils engineer shall inspect and approve the mitigation measures and the
foundation excavations. The soils engineer shall submit documentation to the Building
Division which verifies compliance with the recommendations specified in the soils report.
G:\COl\1DEV\View _ Objects\zoning\02] 00008IBuilding Comments. DOC
6. SPECIAL INSPECTIO: .~ In addition to the inspections by CB ...ec. 108, the owner or
the engineer or architect of record acting as the owners agent shall employ one or more
special inspectors who shall provide special inspections when required by CBC section 1701.
Please contact the Building Division at the time of plan submittal to obtain an application for
special inspections.
7. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS - Provide Structural Calculations verifying compliance
with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building code Chapter 16. Prior to request for
final inspection, written verification by the engineer of record indicating conformance with
the structural design shall be submitted to the Gilroy Building Division.
8. DEMOLITION - Demolition permits will be issued in accordance with City Ordinance.
Prior to permit issuance: Submit a plot clearly showing the location and the portion of
building or the building to be demolished, a completed application for Demolition, a Bay
Area Air Quality Management District "J" number, and obtain approval from the Building
Official for the scope of work. The forms necessary are available at the Building Counter.
Any Building over 50 years old may also require Historic Heritage Committee approval prior
to demolition. Check with the Planning Division for any additional requirements.
9. GRADING AND SHORING - A site development permit shall be required for all grading
and shoring work. Shoring plans, calculations, etc., must be reviewed and approved by
Building Division.
10. NOTICE OF EXCAVATION - Prior to excavation, adjoining landowners shall be given
notice of the date, location, and extent of excavation in conformity with Section 832 ofthe
Civil Code and copies shall be provided to the Building Official prior to issuance of grading
permit.
11. T -24 ACCESSIBILITY/COMMERCIAL - The developer shall comply with all applicable
provisions of Chapter 11 of the California Building Code (Title 24) for Disabled Access.
. Accessible guest parking spaces are required to meet the CBC. 1129B
. Accessible parking should be located at the shortest route of travel to the accessible
entrance. 1129B 1
. Provide accessible parking spaces to meet Table I1B-7.
· Where single spaces are provided, the unloading access aisle must be placed on the
passenger side. 1129BA.l
. One in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, shall be designed for van
accessibility. 1129BA.2
. The disabled cannot go behind other parked cars. 1129B4.3
· Show the slope of the accessible parking space and unloading area to meet 1129BAA.
. Provide signage to meet 11298.5
. Provide an accessible path of travel between accessible parking and all tenant spaces.
. Provide an accessible path of travel between buildings on the same site.
. Provide an accessible path of travel to the public right of way including the nearest
bus stop.
· Any walking surfaces with a slope greater than 1 :20 will be considered a ramp and
designed as such.
· Pedestrian walkways must conform to requirements for accessibility (path of travel,
slopes of ramps and walkways, etc.).
G :\COMDEV\ View _ Objects\zoning\02) 00008\Building Comments. DOC
12. BUILDING SECURITY - Provide details to show how the conditions of the Building
Security Ordinance will be met.
13. Provide proper address for proposed project on each page of plans prior to submission of
plans for initial building plan check. Provide Assessors Parcel number on title page. I
14. PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE - A pre-construction conference shall be held at a
time and location agreed upon by the City and applicant for the purpose of review and
approval of construction procedures. The building owner/developer shall be represented by
his designer and construction staff. The City will be represented by departments having
conditions of approval on the project.
G:\COMDEV\View _ Objects\zoning\021 00008\Building Comments. DOC
EXHIBIT B
Community Development Department
Planning Division (408) 846-0440
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna St.
Gilroy, CA 95020
City File Number: TM 02-07 (02100009)
Proiect Description:
Name of Project:
Nature of Project:
Mission Park Tentative Map
The proposed project is the subdivision of 3 parcels totaling 6 acres
into 31 lots ranging in size from 4,800 square feet to 8,000 square
feet. Eight of the lots could have an Accessory Dwelling Unit that
could be rented as an apartment. The development would have an
average of6.5 units per acre.
Proiect Location:
Location: Kern Avenue just north of the intersection of Kern and Welburn
Avenue
Assessor's Parcel Number: 790-20-067, -078 and -065.
Entity or Person(s) Undertakin2 Proiect:
Name: Mission Valley Properties
Address: 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170, Pleasanton, CA 94588
Staff Planner: Gregg Polubinsky, gpolubinsky@ci.gilroy.ca.us
Initial Study:
An Initial study of this project was undertaken and prepared for the purpose of
ascertaining whether this project might have a significant effect on the environment. A
copy of this study is on file at the City of Gilroy Planning Division, 7351 Rosanna Street,
Gilroy, CA 95020.
Mission Park Tentative Map
Negative Declaration
Findin2s & Reasons:
The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects on the environment. However, this
project has been mitigated (see Mitigation Measures below which avoid or mitigate the
effects) to a point where no significant effects will occur. There is no substantial evidence the
project may have a significant effect on the environment. The following reasons will support
these findings:
) The proposal is a logical component of the existing land use of this area and a logical
expansion of the surrounding residential neighborhood.
~ Identified adverse impacts are proposed to be mitigated through construction management
practices and construction of on-site improvements.
) The proposed project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan
of the City of Gilroy.
) City staff independently reviewed the Initial Study, and this Negative Declaration reflects
the independent judgment of the City of Gilroy.
) With the application of the following Mitigation Measures the proposed project will not
have any significant impacts on the environment.
2
12/13/02
Revised 1/14/03
Mission Park Subdivision
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
Step 1 Prior to approval of the final map approval, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented:
Mitigation Measure
4. Prior to final map approval, the project proponent shall submit a complete "existing tree
inventory" for review and approval by the City of Gilroy Planning Division, indicating the
location, size and species of existing trees found within the project site boundaries. The
"existing tree inventory" shall indicate which trees are planned for removal. Based on
review of the "existing tree inventory", the City shall determine which trees, if any, are
"significant." If retention of all significant trees on the project site is infeasible, a written
report shall be prepared by a certified arborist including the number and location of each
significant tree to be removed, the type and approximate size of each significant tree, the
reason for removal, and specifications for replacing significant trees to be removed.
Party responsible for implementation:
Party responsible for monitoring:
Applicant
Gilroy Planning Division
EXHIBIT B
Mission Park Tentative Map
Negative Declaration
3
12/13/02
Revised 1/14/03
Step 2 Prior to approval and issuance of a grading permit and/or a building permit, the following
mitigation measures shall be implemented:
Mitigation Measure
1. The project proponent shall specify in project plans the implementation of the following
dust control measures during grading and construction activities for the proposed project.
The measures shall be implemented as necessary to adequately control dust, subject to the
review and approval by the City of Gilroy Engineering Division: (Modified Gilroy General
Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-A)
The following measures shall be implemented at all construction sites:
· Water all active construction areas at least twice daily;
· Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require
all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
· Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on
all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction
sites;
· Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas
and staging areas at construction sites; and
· Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) ifvisible soil material is carried
onto adjacent public streets.
The following measures should be implemented at construction sites greater
than four acres in area:
· All those measure listed above;
· Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction
areas (previously graded areas inactive for fourteen days or more);
· Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to
exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
· Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
· Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to
public roadways; and
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
EXIDBIT B
Mission Park Tentative Map
Negative Declaration
4
12/13/02
Revised 1/14/03
The following measures shall be implemented at construction sites that are large in
area, located near sensitive receptors or which for any other reason may warrant
additional emissions reductions:
· Place 100 linear feet of 6 to 8 inch average diameter cobble at all exist points to
dislodge and trap dirt from vehicle tires;
· Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts)
exceed 25 miles per hour; and
· Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at
anyone time.
Party responsible for implementation: Applicant
Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division
Mitigation Measure
2. The following measures shall be incorporated into all project plans, subject to the review
and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division: (Adopted Gilroy General Plan
EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-B)
· The idling time of all construction equipment shall not exceed five minutes;
· Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and/or the amount of
equipment in use;
· All equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with
the manufacturer's specifications;
· When feasible, alternative fueled or electrical construction equipment shall
be used at the project site;
· Use the minimum practical engine size for construction equipment; and
· Gasoline-powered equipment shall be equipped with catalytic converters,
where feasible.
Party responsible for implementation:
Party responsible for monitoring:
Applicant
Gilroy Engineering Division
EXHIBIT B
Mission Park Tentative Map
Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measure
5
12/13/02
Revised 1/14/03
3. Subject to the review of the City of Gilroy Planning Division, no more than 30 d~ys prior
to the removal of any habitat that would occur during the nesting and/or breeding season
of protected birds potentially nesting on the project site (generally March 1 through
August 1). A field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active
nests are present in the construction zone or within 200 feet of the construction zone.
Areas within 200 feet of the construction zone that are not within the control of the
applicant shall be visually assessed from the project site. If active nests are found within
the survey area, clearing and construction within 200 feet of the active nest(s) shall be
postponed or halted until the nest( s) are vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no
evidence of a second attempt at nesting, at the discretion of the biologist.
Party responsible for implementation:
Party responsible for monitoring:
Applicant
Gilroy Planning Division
Mitigation Measure
5. Due to the possibility that significant buried cultural resources might be found during
construction, the following language shall be included on any permits issued for the
project site, including, but not limited to building permits for future development, subject
to the review and approval of the Gilroy Planning Division:
If archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work
shall be halted within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find until a qualified professional
archaeologist can evaluate it. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate
mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented (Gilroy General Plan Policy
5.07).
Party responsible for implementation:
Party responsible for monitoring:
Applicant
Gilroy Planning Division
Mitigation Measure
6. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any
location other than a dedicated cemetery, the City shall ensure that this language is
included in all permits in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e), subject to
the review and approval of the City of Gilroy Planning Division:
If human remains are found during construction there shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human
remains until the coroner of Santa Clara County is contacted to determine that no
investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be
Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage COl11IIllssion
within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage COl11IIllssion shall identify the person or
persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native
American.
EXlllBIT B
Mission Park Tentative Map
Negative Declaration
6
12/13/02
Revised 1/14/03
The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for
the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the
human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Sedtion
5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American
human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a
location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission
is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours
after being notified by the cOmmission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a
recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the
recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage
Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Party responsible for implementation:
Party responsible for monitoring:
Mitigation Measure
Applicant
Gilroy Planning Division
7. The project applicant shall submit a Notice ofIntent (NOI), detailed engineering designs,
and a storm water pollution prevention program to the Central Coast RWQCB to obtain a
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction permit
prior to any grading or construction activities. This permit shall require implementation of
an approved SWPPP that uses storm water "Best Management Practices" to control
runoff, erosion and sedimentation from the site. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Program is subject to review and approval by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board and the Gilroy Engineering Division.
(Modified Language of Adopted Gilroy General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1 O-C)
Party responsible for implementation:
Party responsible for monitoring:
Mitigation Measure
Applicant
Gilroy Engineering Division,
Regional Water Quality Control Board
8. As part of normal City review and approval procedures for the proposed project, the
following measures shall be incorporated to mitigate construction noise, subject to the
review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division: (Modified Gilroy General
Plan EIR mitigation measure 4.7-B)
a. Limit construction activity to weekdays between 7 AM and 7 PM and Saturdays and
holidays between 9 AM and 7 PM, with no construction on Sundays;
b. Require that all internal combustion engine-driven equipment are equipped with
mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment;
c. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive
receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area.
Party responsible for implementation:
Party responsible for monitoring:
Applicant
Gilroy Engineering Division
EXHIBIT B
Mission Park Tentative Map
Negative Declaration
7
12/13/02
Revised 1/14/03
Step 3 Prior to approval of the issuance of an occupancy permit, the following mitigation measure shall
be implemented:
Mitigation Measure
Date Prepared: December 13, 2002
End of Review Period: January 7,2003
Revised per comments: January 14, 2003
Date.Adopted by City Council: April 21, 2003
{g~~
William Faus
Planning Division Manager
bfaus@ci.gilroy.ca. us
EXIDBIT B
L
I, RHONDA PELLIN, City Clerk ofthe City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached
Resolution No. 2003-25 is an original resolution, duly adopted by the Council ofthe City of
Gilroy at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 21st day of April, 2003, 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 May, 2003.
P(
lerk of the City of Gilroy
(Seal)