Loading...
ERC 04-13-95 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 9S014 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE April 13, 1995 8:00 A.M. CONFERENCE ROOM C (LOWER LEVEL) OI/D~R OF BUSINI~SS N~,M~F,R~ PI~F, SF, NT Paul Roberts, Planning Commissioner;, Ciddy Word¢ll, City PJnnner, Carman Lynaugh, Public Works Project Manager, Wally Dean, Mayor Absent: Don Brown, City Manager, Bob Cowan, Planning Director NON-VOTING M~.Mltl~.Rg PRI~.SI~.NT Norman Kobyashi, Community Member - STAFF PRV. SF. NT -' Michele Bjorman, Planner II; Colin ~ung, Associate Planner;, Vera Oil, Planner II; and Nancy Souders, Secretary APPROVAl, OF MINUTF. S The minutes of the meeting of February 08, 1995 were approved as submitted. Vote 4-0 Nv.W IIUSINI~SS I. Application No: 4-Z-95 nnd 12-U-73 (Amendment) and 8-EA-95 Applicant: Marinnist Novitiate Property Owner: Marinnist Noviti~e Location: 22655 Mnrianist Way This is a application for rezoning a .18 acre parcel from R2 (Residential Duplex)-4~25 to BQ (Q-~si=PubHc Building) and a Use Permit for modification to allow retreats, education activities and receptions. The applicants have purchased a residence located next door to meet their parking situation. The applicant Would like to move their parking into the lot where the house is located. The applicant has not decided whether or not they will use the house for storage or a residence. There are no si_tmificant impacts, the applicant will not be moving eny trees and leave the turf a~a as it is. Staff recommended a Negative ._ Declaration. Paul Roberts moved for a Negative Declaration. Carmen Lynangh seconded the motion. ~ Vote 4-0. ERC Minutes December 8, 1994 Page -2- 2. Application No: 3-U-95 and 5-EA-95 Application: Emily Chen Property Owner:. l~.mily Chen Location: 10480 South SteHing This a proposed Tentative Map to subdivide a .$1 acre parcel into 2 lots; and a Re, zoning proposai tO rezone a .$1 acre parcel from RI-10Ag to Rl-?.5. The RI-10A(] is a remainder zoning from the earlier 1970's when the land was all agriculture, and on the outskirts of town during that time. What the applicant is proposing is in order to achieve the two lot ~ubdivision, is to rezone the lot into two ?.$ lots sizes; which is the majority of this area. There is no eflvironmontai impact, so the staff is reoommending a Negative Declaration. Ciddy Wordell moved for a Negative Declaration. Carmen Lynangh sccondecl the motion. Vote 40. 3. Application No. 81,004.18 and 3-EA-95 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner:. Various Location: Cit~vide This proposal is to amend various residential zones of the Cupet~no Municipal Code, which includes sddlng provisions regarding residential group homes. This applicant will apply to all agriculture, resideptlnl, and c~-public zoning districts in the city. Currently there is not~i,~g in any Ordlnnnce or zoning districts to control the number ofhabitents per dwelling unit. The City is proposing some guidelines and Use Permit restrictions to control these types of envinmments. The two types of living environments arc, residential care types of facitities (groups of individuals who live in housing but have ca~-eUdcers) and the other types that are not therapeutic are congregant care facilities (which are people who live togctber, i.e.: a fraternity house). The City has determined the threshold of licanses and unlicansed people who can Hve under one roof as defined by state law. For a residential carehome with seven or more, Or a congregant care home that has eleven, .the City will place some restrictions. These restrictions include buffering restrictions. This may be considered us paxt of the Use Permit process. This ordinance will provide the City with some very specific findings that would have to be made in order for City Council Or plnnning Commission to grant a conditional Use Permit. This will allow the City to have some control over the proximity, the number of parkln5 spaces, and the square footage of outdoor aro~ This also will aid the enviroumant because the ordinance is being created in comparison to what the City currently has. Staff is recommending a Negative Declaration. Paul Roberts moved for a Negative Decinration. ¢iddy Wordell seconded the motion. Vote 4-0. £RC Minutes December 8, 1994 Pa~e -3- 4. Applichtion No.: 81,152 and 9-EA-95 Applicant: City of Cupertino Propur~ Owner Various Location: Properties along or near Stevens Cr~k Boulevard ~om Highway 85 to the enstern City limits. This application is the Hen~ of the City Specific Plnn. The Specific Plan itself is an implementing tool for the General Plan. It is designed to be implemented with the concept of the General Plan, guidance for the allocation of the development in and nround Stevens Creek Boulevard, and designed to provide some additional development standards of architectural guidenc~ for new development. Most of the physical impacts with a project of this size has been analyzed in the 1993 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. The Specific Plan provides some additional refinement and detail to where exactly the new housing units will be locamd, the density, the design of the buildings, the sitting of the buildings, and the stmeUcapu. The environmental impacts of this project in the public improvements and the specific land use, use dimcfious that were called for in the current plan being drafted for the Plnnning Comm~sion, to verify the difference with the General Plan. The schools .,t~d they were neutral in regards to this project as they could not foresee any futu~ environmental impacts. Other potential impacts that have been analyzed, is that some street ~rees may be removed and replanted with the ~ees that have been recommended in the Specific Plan. The staff feels the trees being removed will be compensated by the large number of additional irees the City will be planting in and along Stevehs Creek Boulevard. In regards to other Environmental Impacts the staff believes there will be some short term noise impacts due to consm~ction renovations, and the noise while moving the sidewalks. The staff expects there to be a short-term increase in the rate of removal of natural resources, such es reck, sand and ~avel for the purpose of installing the sidewalks. Traffic impacts were analyzed in the 1993 Cupertino General Plan Environmental Impact Report. In that report it was forcasted that there was going to be minor traffic congestion. There are two exceptions, those are intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard, as well as De Anza Boulevard and Bollinger Road. The General Plan accepted the level of service of"E" with no more then a 45 second delay in order to implement the Heart of the City concept Public Services impacts of additional development was again analyzed in the 1993 General Plan, and this was well within the capacities of the City without a need for substantial increase in services. Most neighborhoods have parklands with over 3 acre per thousand, and have a residential park. Staff is recommending a Negative Declaration reco?i~ing that this an implementing tool for the General Plan. Paul Roberts moved for a Negative Declaration with the agreement that a minute order would be attached. Carmen Lynangh seconded the motion. Vote 4-0. ADJOURNMKNT c/Nnncylere/min 141395