PC Reso 1609 28-TM-.76
RESOLUTION.NO. 1609
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
411) RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO
DIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 0.4 ACRES INTO FOUR PARCELS .
APPLICANT: May Investment Company
ADDRESS: 21060 Homestead Rd. , Cupertino, California 95014
SUBMITTED: October 29, 1976
LOCATION: Easterly of and adjacent to Terry Way at its southerly terminus
ACREAGE: 0.4 acres
FURTHER FINDINGS:
The recommendation for denial of the companion zoning application 24-Z-76
precludes a recommendation for approval of the subject tentative map.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of November, 1976, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Conunission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blaine, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairman Adams
NAYS; None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
• APPROVED:
/s/ Victor J. Adams
Victor J. Adams, Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
James H. Sisk
Planning.Director
•
-2-
fl
II;
CITY 07 C "U ' ERTINO
City Hall, 10300Torre Avenue •
Cupertino, California 95014 II
Telephone: (408) 252,4505
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING
THE DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP
WHEREAS, the attached application has been submitted to the City of Cupertino
requesting approval of a tentative map;; and h'
III ,I
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in
regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered and heard all evidence
submitted in regard to said application; and
II
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the
subdivision and procedural ordinances of .the City of Cupertino.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: III;
1. That the Planning Commission makesLthe following findings:
II,
a) • That the proposed map is inconsistent with the general and specific
plans. 1 •
b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
inconsistent with the general and specific plans.
II. II
c). That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
II
d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
` II
e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially
and. avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are
likely to cause serious publicl health problems.
g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large ,for
access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
III
•
III
Ili !I
II
II