ERC 05-19-2022 (FINAL approved minutes)City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777‐3308
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
HELD ON MAY 19, 2022
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Moore opened the meeting at 9:31 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Commission Members present: Kitty Moore, Chair and City Councilmember
Matt Morley, Vice Chair and Director of Public Works
Dianne Thompson, Assistant City Manager
Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development
Steven Scharf, Planning Commission Chair
Commissioners Members absent: None
Staff present: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Brianne Harkousha, Associate Planner
Gian Martire, Senior Planner
Andre Duurvoort, Sustainability Manager
Cyrah Caburian, Administrative Assistant
Outside Panelists: Nick Pappani, Raney Planning
Emily Marino, Rincon Consultants
Matt Maddox, Rincon Consultants
Alok Damireddy, District McClellan
Emily Marino, Rincon Consultants
Matt Maddox, Rincon Consultants
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Subject: Approve the October 28, 2021 Environmental Review Committee meeting minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the October 28, 2021 Environmental Review Committee meeting
minutes
Fu moved and Thompson seconded.
AYES: Moore, Thompson, Fu
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Morley, Scharf
ABSENT: None
VOTE: 3‐0‐2‐0
POSTPONEMENTS
None
2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Member of the public, Connie Cunningham, spoke regarding redesign of 20680 McClellan Road.
Member of the public, Jennifer Griffin, spoke regarding AB 2011 and potential environmental impacts.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
2. Subject: Consider whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental
document for a project to subdivide and redevelop one single family residential property into six single
family residential properties. Permits required include a Zoning Map Amendment Permit to consider
rezoning a 1.27‐acre parcel from R1‐10 to R1‐7.5, Tentative Map Permit to consider the subdivision of one
parcel into six parcels, and six Two‐Story Permits to consider the development of single‐family homes.
(Application No(s).: Z‐2021‐002, TM‐2021‐006, R‐2021‐040, ‐041, ‐042 ‐043, ‐044, ‐045, EA‐2022‐002;
Applicant(s): Alok Damireddy (District McClellan LLC); Location: 20860 McClellan Road APN #359‐20‐
030)
Recommended Action: That the Environmental Review Committee consider the Mitigated Negative
Declaration the appropriate environmental review document for the proposed project.
Staff member Harkousha provided presentation on the proposed mitigated negative declaration (MND)
document, which would include demolition of the structures on the existing lot and removal of
unprotected trees to redevelop the property into six single family lots. Public comment received centered
around traffic, sizes of garage, parking and sizes of lots.
Findings from the environmental review show no significant impact to the environment. However, two
areas on the property were found to have soil contamination, typical of properties used for agricultural
purposes in the past, which would require mitigation to reduce the impact to a less significant level.
Mitigations were identified in the MND.
Public comment was opened twice during discussion and the following members of the public spoke:
Jennifer Griffin – concern of public utility clearance to current property lines
Lisa Warren – concerned that soil contamination findings not notified to residents
Mynul Hoda – received different plan set from developer than plan submitted to City
Larry Harrison – encouraged remediation between adjacent property owners and developers
Connie Cunningham – encouraged developer to consider multifamily building on project site
3
Committee members asked questions whether plans submitted to the Committee differ from plans
shared with adjacent neighbors (it was determined no change to the overall project itself), additional soil
testing and determination of adequate soil borings, and concerns of oil leakage from the gas containers
in the storage barn and if these would be fully mitigated. These were responded to by staff, project
applicant Damireddy and consultant Pappani.
Motion by Moore and second by Morley to accept Mitigated Negative Declaration as the appropriate
environmental review document for the proposed project on the condition that additional soil testing be
conducted through a scope of work agreed upon by the city’s third party reviewer and applicants
Geotech specialists, and any additional measures from the peer review be incorporated in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration prior to Planning Commission hearing.
Substitute motion made by Moore to continue item upon further soil testing and review of historical uses
of the site (Scharf seconded).
Substitute motion by Thompson to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the appropriate
environmental review document for the proposed project on the condition that additional testing be
conducted through a scope of work agreed upon by the City’s third‐party reviewer and applicants
Geotech specialists and any additional measures from the peer review be incorporated in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration prior to Planning Commission and seconded by Morley.
AYES: Morley, Thompson, Fu
NOES: Moore, Scharf
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
VOTE: 3‐2‐0‐0
3. Subject: Consider whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental
document for a Hillside Exception to allow a maintenance road within an existing residential property
on slopes greater than 30%. (Application No(s).: EXC‐2019‐003, EA‐2022‐001; Applicant(s): Bruce and
Joyce Steakley; Location: 21750 Rainbow Drive; APN #366‐03‐064)
Recommended Action: That the Environmental Review Committee consider the Mitigated Negative
Declaration the appropriate environmental review document for the proposed project.
Staff member Martire provided presentation on proposed access road and maintenance road to allow
shorter access to vineyard without going through neighboring property. While no trees are expected to
be removed, some are anticipated to be trimmed back to allow for vehicle clearance. Findings from the
environmental review show no significant impact to the environment.
Morley moved and Fu seconded.
AYES: Moore, Morley, Thompson, Fu, Scharf
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
VOTE: 5‐0‐0‐0
4
Committee recessed from 11:13 to 11:18.
4. Subject: Climate Action Plan 2.0 Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Recommended Action: Review the draft Initial Study and recommend that the Environmental Review
Committee consider a Negative Declaration appropriate for the project.
Staff member Duurvoort provided presentation on initial study of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP)
to attain greenhouse gas emission targets consistent with State regulations, and usage of CAP policies in
future project reviews, such as environmental changes requiring installation of needed infrastructure to
accommodate transmission of alternative fuels or electric vehicle charging stations. Additional changes
to individual projects requiring discretionary approval are still subject to CEQA environmental review.
Member of the public, Jennifer Griffin, supports item and expressed concern State legislature would
have on traffic and parking.
Committee asked for distinction between the submitted Negative Declaration versus MND, which were
answered by Staff member Duurvoort and Consultant Maddox.
Fu moved and Thompson seconded.
AYES: Moore, Morley, Thompson, Fu, Scharf
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
VOTE: 5‐0‐0‐0
STAFF UPDATES AND COMMISSION REPORTS:
None
FUTURE AGENDA (limitation, cannot discuss)
Suggestion by Moore of subsequent items to be distributed with depth of materials.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:06 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Environmental Review
Committee meeting.
Respectfully submitted:
/s/Cyrah Caburian___
Cyrah Caburian
Administrative Assistant