Attachment 2
-1-
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
RESOLUTION NO.
SERIES 2025
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE A SINGLE LOT FOR 80 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND ONE COMMON LOT AT 294-296 TYRELLA AVENUE (APN 160-32-001 and 160-32-002),
AND FINDING THE PROJECT TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 15332 (“IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS”)
OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, the California Legislature adopted the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) to “significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects….”; and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the state that the HAA “be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing”; and
WHEREAS, the Builder’s Remedy is a provision of the HAA that is applicable to qualifying housing development projects when a preliminary application is submitted before the City adopted a substantially compliant Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2023, Forrest Linebarger of Tower Investment, LLC ( Applicant), submitted a preliminary application (Application No. PL -2023-102) for a Development Review Permit to construct a seven-story, 85-unit residential condominium building replacing an existing single-family house and a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove six Heritage trees on a
0.48-acre site located at 294-296 Tyrella Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on the same date, the Applicant submitted an application (Application No. PL-2023-102) for a Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes at 294 -296 Tyrella Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the preliminary application was submitted before the City adopted a substantially compliant Housing Element, and 20% of the total units will be affordable to lower - income households. Therefore, the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA effective between January 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024; and
-2-
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2025, the Applicant submitted a project revision to reduce the number of residential condominium units from 85 units to 80 units and modify the parking to include three -level podium parking instead of parking lifts. Because t hese revisions do not change the number of residential units or square footage of construction by 20% or more, the City must still apply the standards in effect at the time the preliminary application was submitted; and
WHEREAS, consistent with its intent to facilitate the approval of housing, the HAA limits the City’s ability to deny or condition approval of a housing development project for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households in a manner that renders the project infeasible for affordable housing development; and
WHEREAS, the Builder’s Remedy provision of the HAA also prohibits the City from relying on inconsistency with zoning and General Plan standards as a basis for denial of a housing development project for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households; and
WHEREAS, the subject property has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium High- Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R3-1 (Multiple-Family) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the project as currently proposed is inconsistent with numerous arguably “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the [City’s] share of the regional housing need”; and
WHEREAS, the City has made its best efforts to encourage the Applicant to bring the project into compliance with many of these arguably objective standards, including portions of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, but the Applicant has asserted that complying with these standards make the project “infeasible”; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to avoid protracted and expensive litigation over Builder’s Remedy law, which will only serve to delay this housing project, and to demonstrate the City’s commitment to addressing the state and regional housing crisis, the City is conditionally approving the project notwithstanding its noncompliance with certain development standards , and is not imposing conditions of approval re quiring Park Land Dedication In Lieu Fees or Transportation Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator and Subdivision Committee held duly noticed public hearings on November 13, 2024 and March 12, 2025 on said application and recommended the City Council conditionally approve the Subdivision Map , Development Review Permit, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit for the project, subject to findings and conditions of approval; and
-3-
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 8, 2025 on said application and received and considered all evidence presented at said hearing, including the attached recommendation from the Subdivision Committee, the City Council report, and project materials, and determined that the Tentative Map is consistent with the applicable zoning and subdivision requirement in the General Plan and the City Code; and
WHEREAS, on that same date, the City Council adopted a companion resolution conditionally approving a Development Review Permit and Heritage Tree Removal Permit and finding the project exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332; and
WHEREAS, subdivision of the property will facilitate the development of the project site consistent with applicable provisions of the General Plan; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that, based on substantial evidence in the record, the City Council of the City of Mountain View finds the project to be categorically exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (“In-Fill Development Projects”) as set forth in the companion resolution and as described in further detail below; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: that the City Council hereby makes the following findings regarding the Tentative Tract Map (Application No. PL-2023-103):
a. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (Gov. Code §§ 66473.5, 66474) The Builder’s Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act prohibit local agencies from relying on inconsistency with zoning and General Plan standards as a basis for denial of a housing development project for very low -, low-, or moderate-income households. The project is consistent with some provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, and where the project is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, said inconsistencies are not a basis for disapproval of the project. The subdivision is compatible with some General Plan policies. Specifically, the project supports the General Plan Policies LUD 3.5 (Diversity) and LUD 3.9 (Parcel Assembly). The subdivision provides for the improvement of 0.48 acre with frontage improvements, including new utility connections, new landscaping, and repair of damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalks;
b. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. (Gov. Code § 66474) The Builder’s Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act prohibit local agencies from relying on inconsistency with zoning and General Plan standards as a basis for denial of a housing development project for very low -, low-, or moderate -income households.
The project is consistent with some provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, and where the project is inconsistent with the Zo ning Ordinance and General Plan, said inconsistencies are not a basis for disapproval of the project. The proposed map facilitates development of the project site consistent with some provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and is intended to provide 80 mixed-income residential units (6 4 market-rate and 16 units affordable
-4-
to low-income households) to alleviate housing and affordability problems. The site is flat and is surrounded by existing residential developments in the area. The site supports General Plan Policy LUD 3.5 (Diversity) as the project is a residential deve lopment serving a range of diverse households and incomes (6 4 market-rate units and 1 6 affordable units). The proposed development of 0.48-acre site will not exceed a maximum development of 80 units;
c. The proposed design of the subdivision and the improvements, as conditioned, will not cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (Gov. Code § 66474) The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitats as the project site complies with CEQA as a categorically exempt project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (“In -Fill Development Projects”) because the project is consistent with the following findings, and none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply:
1. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
The Applicant submitted a preliminary application before the City adopted a substantially compliant Housing Element for a housing development project that proposes 20% of its total units to be affordable to lower-income households; therefore, the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy pro visions in effect between January 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024 . The Builder’s Remedy provision of the HAA prohibits the City from relying on inconsistencies with zoning and General Plan standards as a basis for denial of a housing development project for very low -, low-, or moderate -income households. Therefore, any existing zoning requirements and development standards that the project is not in compliance with are not “applicable” to t he project within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, subd ivision (a). The proposed project is also consistent with the Medium-High Density Residential Designation in the General Plan and applicable General Plan policies, such as LUD 3.5(Diversity), as the project encourages residential developments serving a range of diverse households and incomes. The proposed project is a residential development that supports a range of incomes as the project proposes 20% affordable units. The project also supports LUD
3.9 (Parcel Assembly) as the project supports the assembly of smaller parcels to encourage infill development that meets City standards and spurs neighborhood reinvestment;
2. The proposed development occurs within City limits on a project site of no more than five acres and substantially surrounded by urban uses. The gross project site is approximately 0.48 acre in size and is located at the southwest corner of Middlefield Road and Tyrella Avenue within the eastern -central portion of the City of Mountain View. The site is located within an urbanized, developed residential area of the City and is surrounded by existing residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project would meet this criterion;
3. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The project site is developed with existing residential uses and is located within a developed, urban area of the City. Vegetation on the site consists of landscape trees, and the
-5-
site does not contain habitat for endangered, rare, or, threatened species . The project will be required to comply with the City’s standard tree replacement requirements outlined in the City Code and the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval.
No species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species are known to occur at the site location, and no sensitive or jurisdictional habitats are present at or adjacent to the site. The site is not part of any habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, and the project would meet this criterion under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(c);
4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
Traffic/Transportation: As the project is residential, it would not exceed the City’s transportation impact thresholds. According to the City of Mountain View’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) policy, residential projects located in areas of low VMT, defined as exhibiting VMT that is 15% or greater below the existing nine -county Bay Area regional average VMT, shall be presumed to have a less -than-significant transportation impact. The project site is located in a low VMT area and, therefore, the project would not result in significant transportation impacts.
Noise: The project would not exceed the City’s applicable significance thresholds related to noise or vibration. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or a public airport and would not expose people residing or working in the are a to excessive aircraft noise levels.
The project would result in construction noise and vibration at levels similar to other midrise construction projects within the City. There is nothing unique or peculiar about the project or its construction that would suggest that the project would have greater construction noise or vibration impacts than other typical midrise construction projects.
The project would include stationary sources of operational noise, such as mechanical heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, that is standardized for noise reduction, as well as an emergency generator for the elevator. Stationary equipment would be located and shielded to operate within the City’s Noise Ordinance requirements. As directed by the California Supreme Court in Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2024), 16 Cal. 5th 43, noise from resident ac tivity at the site is not considered an environmental impact.
Based on the above discussion, the project would not result in significant or unique noise impacts. With implementation of all required standard conditions of approval pertaining to noise (see Section 5.0 , CEQA Checklist, for full text of applicable conditions), the project would not result in significant effects related to noise or vibration. For these reasons, the project would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d).
-6-
Air Quality: The project would not exceed the City’s applicable significance thresholds related to air quality. The project is consistent with the policies and standards of the City’s General Plan and proposes infill residential development within an area that is well-served by transit. As such, the project is also considered to be consistent with the Clean Air Plan.
The project would not exceed the screening criteria published by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) air quality emissions resulting from construction or operations. Construction‐related emissions from the project will be reduced to a less -than- significant level with im plementation of required City of Mountain View standard conditions of approval. Given the nature of the proposed residential use, project operations would not be a substantial source of toxic air contaminants and would not pose a health risk to others. Pursuant to the City of Mountain View’s standard conditions of approval, the project will be required to install MERV 13 or better HVAC air filters which will remove emissions from indoor air and ensure that the project will not result in significant health risks.
With implementation of the City’s standard condition s of approval, the project would not result in significant effects related to air quality and would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d).
Water Quality: The project would not exceed the City’s applicable significance thresholds related to water quality. The project site is currently developed and is located within an urbanized environment. There are no lakes, creeks, or other surface waters in the immediate site vicinity. The project site is served by the City’s existing stormwater system and downstream conveyance channels that will receive runoff from the project.
Given the location and flat nature of the site, the project would not substantially increase runoff as a source of polluted runoff from the site. The project will be subject to regulatory requirements and the City’s standard conditions of approval, which require site design measures to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and limit pollution in stormwater runoff.
With implementation of all required standard conditions pertaining to water, the project would not result in significant impacts related to water quality and would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d) for an infill exemption; and
5. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
As documented in the utility impact study, the project would not exceed the City’s applicable significance thresholds related to utilities and public services. The project site is located within an urbanized residential area of the City , which is served by all needed utilities (e.g., water, electricity, sanitary sewer facilities, and storm drain facilities) and all required public services (e.g., Police and Fire services, public schools). The proposed redevelopment will require specific on‐site extensions and improvements to existing utility infrastructure to serve the new residential condominium building. Based on the findings and recommendations of the utility study which also incorporates information from previous studies, the project would not contribute to additional deficiencies in the water system or sewer system.
-7-
The project would not result in significant effects related to utilities or public services and would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d) for an infill exemption;
d. The design of the subdivision and its improvements will not cause serious public health problems. (Gov. Code § 66474) The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because the project will be consistent with applicable policies included in the General Plan and the City Code and will be subject to standard conditions of approval to protect public health, safety, convenience, and welfare. Proposed public (off -site) improvements are de signed to meet applicable City design standards and the City Code. Additionally, the project will be further reviewed for compliance with Building and Fire Codes to ensure on -site improvements comply with applicable codes for safe habitation;
e. The design of the subdivision and its improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public -at-large, for access through or use of property within the subdivision (Gov. Code § 66474). The subdivision and improvements as conditioned will not conflict with existing easements;
f. For a proposed subdivision with more than 500 dwelling units, water will be available and sufficient to serve the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 66473.7 of the Subdivision Map Act. (Gov. Code § 66473.7) This finding does not apply because the project proposes 80 dwelling units;
g. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the sewer system will not violate regional water quality control regulations. (Gov. Code § 66474.6) The subdivision will not result in the discharge of waste into the sewer system that would violate regional water quality control regulations;
h. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. (Gov. Code § 66473.1) The subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. The project includes a cool roof to reflect sunlight and absorb less energy to reduce energy consumption; and
i. The City has considered the effects on housing needs of the region in which the local jurisdiction is situated and balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. (Gov. Code § 66412.3) In approving the tentative tract map, the City Council has considered its effect upon the housing needs of the region balanced with the public service needs of Mountain View residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: that the City Council hereby approves the Tentative Tract Map to create a single lot for 80 condominium units and one common lot at 294 -296 Tyrella Avenue (APN 160-32-001 and 160-32-002) (Application No. PL -2023-103), based on the findings above
-8-
and subject to the subdivider’s compliance with and fulfillment of all of the conditions of approval, which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: that, in a good-faith effort to reduce financial constraints on housing development projects for lower -income households, in an effort to avoid protracted and expensive litigation over Builder’s Remedy law, which will only serve to delay this housing project, and to demonstrate the City’s commitment to addressing the state and regional housing crisis, the City Council will not impose conditions of approval requiring Park Land Dedication In Lieu fees or Transportation Impact Fees for the project; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: that, notwithstanding any representations to the contrary in the Applicant’s project submittals, this Resolution does not waive the requirement for subsequent City approvals as applicable, including, but not limited to, approvals for building permits, excavation permits, demolition permits, encroachment permits, use permit(s), licenses, Certificates of Occupancy, etc.
TIME FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW:
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, as established by Resolution No. 13850, adopted by the City Council on August 9, 1983.
NOTICE:
The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of the dedications, reservations, and exactions. The Applicant is hereby further notified that the 90 -day appeal period in which th e Applicant may protest these fees and other exactions pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a) has begun. If the Applicant fails to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all requirements of Section 66020, the Applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions.
– – – – – – – – – – –
KP/6/RESO
828-04-08-25r-1
Exhibits: A. Subdivision Conditions of Approval
B. Tentative Map
Exhibit A
KP/4/CDD
828-12-10-24SD Page 1 of 4
SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS
APPLICATION NO.: PL-2023-103
294-296 TYRELLA AVENUE
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that the applicant is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Mountain View City Code and the State of California. Where approval by a City Department Director or Official is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws, and regulations, and accepted practices for the item (s) under review. The applicant is hereby notified that the applicant is required to comply with all applicable codes or ordinances of the City of Mountain View and the State of California that pertain to this development and are noted herein.
This approval is granted to construct an 80-unit residential development located on Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 160-32-001 and 160-32-002.
Development shall be substantially as shown on the project materials listed below, except as may be modified by conditions contained herein, which are kept on file in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department:
a. Tentative Map prepared by Tower Investment, LLC, dated February 28, 2025.
THIS REQUEST IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
FINAL MAP
1. MAP SUBMITTAL: File a final map for approval and recordation in accordance with the City Code, the California Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 65589.5, and other state laws prior to the issuance of any building permit for the property(ies) within the subdivision. All existing and proposed easements are to be shown on the map. Submit the map for review concurrent with all items on the Map Checklist and the Off -Site Improvement Plans to the Public Works Department.
All required materials shall be submitted electronically (i.e., flattened, reduced-size PDFs).
2. PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT: At first submittal of a final map to the Public Works Department, the applicant shall provide a current preliminary title report indicating the exact name of the current legal owners of the property(ies), their type of ownership (individual, partnership, corporation, etc.), and legal description of the property(ies) involved (dated within six months of the submission). The title report shall include all easements and agreements referenced in the title report.
Depending upon the type of ownership, additional information may be required. The applicant shall provide an updated title report to the Public Works Department upon request. All required materials shall be submitted electronically (i.e., flattene d, reduced-size PDFs).
3. SOILS REPORT: Soils and geotechnical reports prepared for the subdivision shall be indicated on a final map. Submit a copy of the report with the first submittal of a final map. All required materials shall be submitted electronically (i.e., flattene d, reduced-size PDFs).
As required by the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, a project site-specific geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a registered soils/geologist identifying any seismic hazards and recommending mitigation measures to be taken by the project.
The applicant, through the applicant’s registered soils engineer/geologist, shall certify the project complies with the requirements of the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. Indicate the location (page number) within the geotechnical report of where this certification is located or provide a separate letter stating such.
4. MAP DOCUMENTS: Prior to the approval and recordation of the map, submit a subdivision guarantee, Santa Clara County Tax Collector’s letter regarding unpaid taxes or assessments, and subdivision security if there are unpaid taxes or special assessments. All required materials shall be submitted electronically (i.e., flattened, reduced-size PDFs).
5. FINAL MAP APPROVAL: A final map shall be signed and notarized by the owner and engineer/surveyor and submitted with a PDF to the Public Works Department. In order to place the approval of a final map on the public hearing agenda for the City Draft
KP/4/CDD
828-12-10-24SD Page 2 of 4
Council, all related materials and agreements must be completed, signed, and received by the Public Works Department 40 calendar days prior to the Council meeting date. After City Council approval, the City Engineer will sign the map. The applicant’s title company shall have the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office record the original and shall provide a Xerox Mylar copy of the map to be endorsed by the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office. The endorsed Xerox Mylar copy and a PDF shall be returned within one week after recording the map to the Public Works Department.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY
6. STREET DEDICATION: The existing half -street widths are 50’ for Middlefield Road and 30’ for Tyrella Avenue. No street dedication in easement or fee shall be dedicated on the map.
7. PRIVATE UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENTS: Dedicate private utility and/or access easements on the face of the map, as necessary, for the utility improvements.
ASSESSMENTS, FEES, AND PARK LAND
8. MAP PLAN CHECK FEE: Prior to issuance of any building permits OR prior to approval of a final map, as applicable, the applicant shall pay the map plan check fee in accordance with Sections 28.27.b and 28.19.b of the City Code per the rates in effect at time of application. The map plan check fee shall be paid at the time of first map plan check submitt al per the adopted fee in effect at time of application subject to any annual adjustments authorized by State Law.
9. PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION FEE: Prior to issuance of any building permits OR prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall pay the plan check and inspection fee in accordance with Sections 27.60 and 28.36 of the City Code per the adopted rates in effect at time of application subject to any annual adjustments authorized by State Law.
An initial plan check fee based on the Public Works adopted fee schedule shall be paid at the time of initial improvement plan check submittal based on the initial cost estimate for constructing street improvements and other public facilities; public and private utilities and structures located within the public right -of-way; and utility, grading, and driveway improvements for common green and townhouse-type condominiums. Once the plans have been approved, the approved cost estimate will be used to determine the final bond amounts, plan check fees, and inspection fees. Any paid initial plan check fee will be deducted from the approved final plan check fee.
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
10. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: Install or reconstruct standard public improvements that are shown on Sheet s A1.1 and C -3, including: construction of new storm, sewer, and water connections; replace damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk; install new landscape with street trees on Tyrella Avenue and Middlefield Road; reconstruction of a new driveway on Tyrella Avenue; construct a new curb ramp at the project corner of Middlefield Road and Tyrella Avenue; and pavement restoration on utility trench excavation on Middlefield Road and Tyrella Avenue.
a. Improvement Agreement: Prior to the approval of the first final map, the property owner must sign a Public Works Department improvement agreement for the installation of the public improvements.
b. Bonds/Securities: Prior to the approval of the first final map, the property owner must sign a Public Works Department faithful performance bond (100%) and materials/labor bond (100%) or provide a letter of credit (150%) or cash security (100%) securing the installation and warranty of the off -site improvements in a form approved by the City Attorney’s Office. The surety (bond company) must be listed as an acceptable surety on the most current Department of the Treasury’s Listing of Approved Sureties o n Federal Bonds, Department Circular 570. This list of approved sureties is available through the internet at: www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/ref/suretyBnd/c570_a-z.htm. The bond amount must be below the underwriting limitation amount listed on the Department of the Treasury’s Listing of Approved Sureties. The surety must be licensed to do business in California. Guidelines for security are available at the Public Works Department.
Draft
KP/4/CDD
828-12-10-24SD Page 3 of 4
c. Insurance: Prior to the approval of the first final map, the property owner must provide a Certificate of Insurance and endorsements for the Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability naming the City as an additional insured from the entity that will sig n the improvement agreement. The insurance coverage amounts are a minimum of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) Commercial General Liability, One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) Automobile Liability, One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) Contractor’s Pollution Liab ility, and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) Workers’ Compensation. The insurance requirements are available from the Public Works Department.
11. INFRASTRUCTURE QUANTITIES: Upon submittal of the initial building permit and improvement plans, submit a completed construction cost estimate form indicating the quantities of the street and utility improvements with the submittal of the improvement plans. The construction cost estimate is used to estimate the cost of improvements and to determine the Public Works plan check and inspection fees. The construction cost estimate is to be prepared by the civil engineer preparing the improvement plans.
12. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS: Prepare off-site public improvement plans in accordance with Chapter 28 of the City Code, the City’s Standard Design Criteria, Submittal Checklist, Plan Review Checklist, and the conditions of approval of the projec t.
The plans are to be drawn on 24”x36 ” sheets at a minimum scale of 1” = 20’. The plans shall be stamped by a California - registered civil engineer and shall show all public improvements and other applicable work within the public right-of-way. An Excavation Permit to allow for the work shown on the Off -Site Improvement Plans shall be approved and issued by the Public Works Department within 30 days after the submittal of the approved Plans. The review of the Off -Site Improvement Plans shall follow the city published timelines.
Traffic control plans for each phase of construction shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the Californi a Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and shall show, at a minimum, work areas, delineators, signs, and other traffic-control measures required for work that impacts traffic on existing streets. Construction management plans: Locations of on-site parking for construction equipment and construction workers and on-site material storage areas must be submitted for review and approval and shall be incorporated into the off-site improvement plans and identified as “For Reference Only.”
Off-site improvement plans, an initial plan check fee, and map plan check fee based on the Public Works fee schedule, Improvement Plan Checklist, and items noted within the Checklist must be submitted together as a separate package concurrent with the first submittal of the building plans and a final map. All required materials shall be submitted electronically (i.e., flattened, reduced-size PDFs).
The off-site plans must be approved and signed by the Public Works Department. After the plans have been signed by the Public Works Department, two full -size and two half -size black-line sets, one PDF of the signed/stamped plan set, and a USB flash drive with CAD file and PDF must be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the approval of a final map. CAD files shall meet the City’s Digital Data Submission Standards.
UTILITIES
13. ON-SITE UTILITY MAINTENANCE: On-site water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage facilities shall be privately maintained by the property owner(s).
14. JOINT UTILITY PLANS: Upon submittal of the initial building permit and improvement plans, the applicant shall submit joint utility plans showing the location of the proposed electric, gas, and telecommunication conduits and associated facilities, including, but not limited t o, vaults, manholes, cabinets, pedestals, etc. Appropriate horizontal and vertical clearances in accordance with PG&E requirements shall be provided between gas transmission lines, gas service lines, overhead utility lines, street trees, streetlights, and building structures. These plans shall be combined with and made part of the improvement plans.
Joint trench intent drawings will be accepted at first improvement plan submittal. All subsequent improvement plan submittals shall include joint trench design plans.
Draft
KP/4/CDD
828-12-10-24SD Page 4 of 4
GRADING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (ON-SITE)
15. SURFACE WATER RELEASE: Provide a surface stormwater release for the lots, driveways, alleys, and private streets that prevents the residential buildings from being flooded in the event the storm drainage system becomes blocked or obstructed.
Show and identify path of surface water release on the improvement plans.
OTHER APPROVALS AND EXPIRATION
16. CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER APPROVALS: This map shall be consistent with all requirements of Application No. PL-2023-102.
All conditions of approval imposed under that application shall remain in full force and effect and shall be met prior to approval of a final map.
17. APPROVAL EXPIRATION: If the map is not completed within 24 months from the date of this approval, this map shall expire.
The map is eligible for an extension of an additional 12 or 24 months, provided the application for extension is filed with t he Planning Division by the applicant prior to the expiration of the original map. Upon filing a timely application for extension, the map shall automatically be extended for 60 days or until the application for the extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs first. Notwithstanding any automatic extension period authorized in the Subdivision Map Act, the City may, upon the subdivider’s application filed before the Tentative Map expiration date, extend its life in accordance wit h state law and Section 28.19.75 of the Municipal Code.
NOTE: As required by California Government Code Section 66020, the applicant is hereby notified that the 90 -day period has begun as of the date of approval of this application, in which the applicant may protest any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed by the City as part of this approval or as a condition of approval. The fees, dedications, reservations, or other ex actions are described in the approved plans, conditions of approval, and/or the adopted City fee schedule.
Draft
SS SS
SS
Middlefield Rd.
N 73° 38' 50" W 189.60'
N 73° 38' 50" W 25.85'
S 16° 21' 10" W 49.95'
S 16° 21' 10" W 71.32'
N 16° 22' 13" E 101.32'
MONUMENT LINE
N 73° 38' 50" W 168.80'
N 16° 22' 13" E 48.63'
N 73° 37' 47" W 5.00'
S 16° 21' 10" W 28.68'
TM-1
10' 20' 30' 40'
NORTH
(E) LOT LINE TO BE
REMOVED
(E) PROPERTY LINE
TO REMAIN
28.7'
45.0' MON. LINE
30.0' C.L.
35.0' MON. LINE
(E) EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES
PER 6968-OR-699 (PORTION)
294 & 296 Tyrella Avenue
TENTATIVE MAP
LEGEND
GENERAL NOTES
OWNER:1. TOWER INVESTMENT LLC
(650) 324-0688
785 CASTRO ST, SUITE A
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA. 94041
CIVIL
ENGINEER:
2. BERRY & ASSOCIATES
785 CASTRO ST. SUITE A
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041
[email protected]
ARBORIST:3. KIELTY ARBORIST SERVICES LLC
(650) 515-9783
[email protected]
P.O. BOX 6187
SAN MATEO, CA. 94403
SURVEYOR:4. CARNES & EKPARTIAN, INC.
(408) 847-2013
[email protected]
9505 SUGAR BABE DRIVE
GILROY, CA. 95020
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO:5. 160-32-001 & 160-32-002
EXISTING ZONING:6. R3-1
PROPOSED ZONING:7. R3-1
EXISTING USE:8. RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED USE:9. RESIDENTIAL
NET AREA:10. .4837 ACRES / 21,071 SQ.FT.
NUMBER OF UNITS:11. 80
NUMBER OF LOTS:12. 1
UTILITIES:13. WATER:A. CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEWPUBLIC STREETS:
HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATIONPRIVATE STREETS:
SANITARY SEWER:B. CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEWPUBLIC STREETS:
HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATIONPRIVATE STREETS:
STORM DRAIN:C. CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEWPUBLIC STREETS:
HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATIONPRIVATE STREETS:
GAS / ELECTRIC:D. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
TELEPHONE:E. AT&T / SBC
CABLE TV:F. COMCAST
BENCHMARK:14. CITY OF MT. VIEW BENCH MARK NO. 111-55, ELEVATION 61.124 FEET, NAVD 1988, WAS USED TO PROVIDE ALL THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS MAP.
TOPOGRAPHY:15. INFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED ON BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC MAP PREPARED BY CARNES & EKPARIAN, INC.
DATED 2/5/2020
LOT SIZES:16. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN ZONE X WITH A REDUCED RISK OF
FLOODING DUE TO LEVEE AS SHOWN IN FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP COMMUNITY PANEL No. 06085C0039H, DATED 05/18/2009.
(E) LOT A 9,471 SF
(E) LOT B 11,600 SF
TOTAL 21,071 SF
9,471 SF +/-
(E) LOT A
11,600 SF +/-
(E) LOT B
FOOTPRINT OF (E) SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE TO BE REMOVED
FOOTPRINT OF (E) GARAGE & SHED
TO BE REMOVED
FOOTPRINT OF (N)
PROPOSED BUILDING
21,071 SF +/-
(N) LOT A
R=20.00'
L=31.43'
DELTA=90° 02' 23"
Tyrella Ave.
60' R.O.W.
MONUMENT LINE
EASEMENT LINE
LOT LINE
DISTINCTIVE BORDER
CENTER LINE
ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE
FD 2" BD WITH PM IN
MB, PER R1,R2,R3&R4FD 2" BD WITH PM IN MB
PLS 2693, PER R1,R2&R4
EXISTING AREAS
(N) LOT A 21,071 SF FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES CONSISTING OF 80 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 1 COMMON LOT
TOTAL 21,071 SF
PROPOSED AREAS
APN# 160-32-002
APN# 160-32-001
DOC. 24008424
DOC. 24008423
APN# 160-32-003
THE BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE
BASED ON THE CENTERLINE OF MIDDLEFIELD
ROAD AS FOUND MONUMENTED AND
RECORDED AS S73°40'10"E IN BOOK 356 OF
MAPS, AT PAGE 2, RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
BASIS OF BEARINGS
DOC. NO. 21877776
TRACT 6725
450-M-22
FD 3/4" IP & BT RCE 7147, BEARS
ON 0.02N & 0.07W PER R1 & R2
CENTERLINE
MONUMENT LINE
CENTERLINE
MONUMENT LINE
183-M-31
S 73° 40' 10" E 219.88'(M-M) R1&R2 (219.82')
BASIS OF BEARINGS
S 73° 40' 10" E 214.88'(M-M) R1,R2&R4 (214.93')
N 73° 40' 10" W 143.77'
EϳϯΣϯϴΖϱϬΗtϭϲϯ͘ϳϳΖ
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA JOHN BERRY CIVIL ENGINEER RCE 18720
2149 AVY AVENUE, MENLO PARK, CA 94025
SHEET 1 OF 1
FEBRUARY 2025
1 (650) 400-9003
TENTATIVE MAP
OAK CREEK TERRACE SUBDIVISION
A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS: APN# 160-32-001 AND APN# 160-32-002 AST
AOET CF OLIF
INR A
REGISTEREDPROFESSIONALENGINEER
YRREBCNHOJ
C IV IL
294 & 296 TYRELLA AVE
OAK CREEK TERRACE
REV 7: 02-28-2025
151 CERVANTES
PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028
Berry and Associates
Civil Engineer
REV 1: 02-01-2023
REV 2: 04-10-2023
REV 3: 09-25-2023
REV 4: 12-15-2023
REV 5: 06-12-2024
REV 6: 10-07-2024
MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS: PURSUANT TO SECTION 66456.1 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE DEVELOPER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS. ONLY
THE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT, OF EACH PARTICULAR FINAL MAP NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED OR BOUNDED.
1. TENTATIVE MAP NOTES
50.0' C.L.
100' R.O.W.
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
CONSISTING OF 80 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
AND ONE COMMON LOT
(E) PROPERTY LINE
TO REMAIN
(E) PROPERTY LINE
TO REMAIN
(E) PROPERTY LINE
TO REMAIN
(E) PROPERTY LINE
TO REMAIN
(E) PROPERTY LINE
TO REMAIN
(E) PROPERTY
LINE TO REMAIN
LANDS OF HERNANDEZ
APN# 160-35-010
LANDS OF AUYON
APN# 160-35-011
LANDS OF BING LI
APN# 160-35-009
LANDS OF ARNESON
4 EX. UTILITY POLE
TO BE REMAIN
THE PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWERAGE WILL BE A SEWER LATERAL CONNECTING TO THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW'S SANITARY SEWER MAIN UNDERNEATH TYRELLA AVENUE.
2. (E) 43" COAST LIVE
OAK TO BE REMOVED
TREE SIZES ARE IDENTIFIED BY DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (54"ABOVE EXISTING GRADE).3. (E) 26" COAST LIVE OAK
TO BE REMOVED
(E) 5" COAST LIVE OAK
TO BE REMOVED
(E) FIVE 6" TRUNKS
SPANISH DAGGER TO REMAIN
(E) TWO 7" TRUNKS SPANISH
DAGGER TO REMAIN
(E) 5" BOTTLE
BRUSH TO
REMAIN
(E) 24" MONTEREY
PINE TO BE REMOVED
(E) 17" MONTEREY
PINE TO BE REMOVED(E) 24" MONTEREY
PINE TO BE
REMOVED40" REDWOOD
TO REMAIN
(OFF SITE)
(E) 3" CORDYLINE
TO BE TRANSPLANTED
(E) 6" CORDYLINE
TO BE TRANSPLANTED
(E) 3" CORDYLINE
TO BE TRANSPLANTED
(E) 4" CORDYLINE
TO BE TRANSPLANTED
(E) 4" CORDYLINE
TO BE TRANSPLANTED
(E) 6" COAST LIVE OAK
TO REMAIN
(E) 9" LEMON SCENTED GUM
TO REMAIN
(N) 6" S.S.
LATERAL
EXTENT OF
6968 OR 699
ORIGINAL STREET FROM
MAP OF HAMWOOD
(BOOK N PAGE 86)
H709 OR 145
H709 OR 141
DOC. 24008424
Exhibit B