Reso 1858 14-TM-78
RESOLUTION NO. 1858
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
410 RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE
APPROXIMATELY .32 ACRES INTO THREE AIR-SPACE CONDOMINIUM
UNITS WITH RIGHTS OF EXCLUSIVE OCCUPANCY
APPLICANT: James J. Garber
ADDRESS: 489 Border Hill Road, Los Altos, California 94022
SUBMITTED: May 22, 1978
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Alpine Drive
FINDINGS:
The Commission finds that the subject proposal may encourage other property owners
of undeveloped R3 lots to seek rezoning to permit development of ownership units in
lieu of rental units and will reduce the potential future rental unit base of the
community.
III
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of July, 1978, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Claudy, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairperson Blaine
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Adams
APPROVED:
/s/ Sharon Blaine
Sharon Blaine
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
4.i:- GUI:VA.
Robert Cowan
•
Assistant Planning Director
CITY OF CUPERTINO
City Hall, 10300'; Torre Avenue 110
Cupertino, California 95014
Telephone: (408) 252-4505
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING
TNF DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP
WHEREAS, the attached application has been submitted to the City of Cupertino
requesting approval of a tentative map; and
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
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:
1. That the Planning Commission makes the following findings:
a). That the proposed map is inconsistent with the general and specific
plans. 111
b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
inconsistent with the general and specific plans.
c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of.
development.
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 public 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.
S