ERC 02-08-95 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 9~014 ·
Mll~fl~l~S OF TI~' REGULAR MEETinG
OF ~ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMl~'rr~:E
February 8, 199~
8:00 A.M. CONFERENCE ROOM C (LOWER LEVEL)
ORDER OF BUS1NKSS
1VI~.MRKR.q PRI~.SI~.NT
Paul Roberts, Planning Commissioner, Bob Cowan, Director of Community Development, Don Brown,
City Manager, Bert Viskovich, Director of Public Works
Absent: Wally Dean, Mayor
NON-VOTING MR. MllF. R.q PRRS~.NT
Norman Kobyashi, Comm,mlty Member
--' STA~ PRI~.SI~.NT
Michele Bjurman, Planner H, Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Colin lung, Associate Planner, and Nancy
Souders, SeCl~'tary
APPROVAl. OF MINUTI/.S
Mr. Roberts asked for any corrections, additions or deletions to the minutes of January 12, 1995. The
following amendment was made:
· Application No. 1-GPA and 6-EA-93. Page 2, paragraph 3, and line 3, the word "11' has been
changed to "will."
I~.W ~tUSINKSS
1. Application No: 2-Z-95 and 4-U-95 and 6=EA-95
Applicant: Central Fire Protection District
Property Owner:. Central Fifo ~ District
Location: 22620 Stevens Creek Boulevard
This is a application for rezonin$ a .4 acre parcel from RI to BA (Public Building), and a Use Permit to
replace an existing fire station. 'l'ne existing building is about 2,300 square feet end the applicant's
proposing change will increase their work space to 7,600 square feet. They m'e not expanding their
piffsonnel er equipment, but do have the capacity for one additional person. The traffic impacts are not
significant. The applicants daily site trips average six employee ~ps, two business trips, and an average of
- 1.7 emergency vehicle trips per day. The circulation will be approved because they would be able to enter
and exit from Prado Vist~ The real si?iflcant impacts are eesthetic, visual and noise. The nesthetics
relates to the setback which are five feet, this makes it quite close to the adjacent prepert~ lines and the
ERC Minutes
December 8, 1994
Page -2-
wall plans ar~ quite high. Thc ar~hito~s are ~rently Wing to st~p ha~k th~ rear of the building about five
feet. The apparatus room may not be moved over or altered so they are considering some landscape
screening. Er611 thollgh this is si~fica~t the staff is still recommending a m~ Negative Declaration
bec-~-se lhls can be reduced to less than significant during tho Use Permit p~ocem. The noise impa~ts have '
also bean idantified as having significant impacts becm~se some of the noises exceed the cities noise
sumdards. The noise really r~let~ m Ibe testing of ~be portable equipment. The ether nois~ impa~s
would be due to the conslmction, the problem is thl, would be difficult becm~ it is typical of all
construction. The applicant will either have to show thai they have mitigated the conslmction noise to
meet the City's ordinan~ or the City will need to emand our consimction noise sumdards. 'l'ue staff is
sub,ting that a Negative D~laration to be adopted borg,se before approval the applicant will have to
demonsirate that they elm reduce those pottable impacts to less than si?i6cant. Mr. Brown moved
for a Negative Declaration. Mr. Cowan seconded the motion.
Vo~e 3-0 (I~. Viskovich not Im~mt)
2. Application No: 3-U-95 and 5-EA-95
Application: Cantral Fir~ Protection District
Location: Vista and Randy Drive, just north of Stevens Cr~k Boulevard
This a proposed Use Permit to replace and expand a existing fire ststion on an adjacent pnreel. The
applicant would like to get off of Stove,s Creek ,and be able to ~xit onto Vista Drive to Stevens Creek
Boulevnrd n~d to return on Randy Drive. Tho applicant has indicated that they need a change to incteese
their access, they have had some esrthclm~ structural problems, and need to nan.vR to new personnel,
which is now a mixtm~ of men and woman. The traffic impacts n~ not si_cmiflcant the daily averages are
15 employee trips a day, 3 business trips, and vehicle respon~ average of about six to sevan a day. (66%
of these responses a~ between seven ~m. and seven p.m., and the quietest times is between 11 p.m. and
sevan a.m.) The circulation changes will include a light control at Banley, and modificntion to medians so
the fit~ ~ will be able to ~ left-hand turns. The va~mt lot chnnge in land uso is sJ?ificant due to
the fact that thi.q has been an un~p~oved vacant lot, with problems of storege of vehicles, and no
structures. The staff is proposing that the change in land use will be mitigated through the setbacks, and
through last gnt~ screening. The setback will have to meet the Stevens Creek Conceptunl Zoning Plnn.
The miti--------~on's and the relationship with the neighbors will be evaluated during the Use P~mit process
and mitigated to the satisfn~on of the City Council The noise impacts are fi'om the stations portable
equipment rusting. This testing exceeds the City's standards. The construction noise will be ac~d the
same as mentioned in the above itotn. Mr. Kenney the homeowners associetion's pt~ident to the adjacent
condomin~-m ~omplex s~t~i their concerts. They do not c~o for the sim plan, and the apparatus making
noise up and down the residential stx'eeC A z~p, es~tatlve for the applicants stated that a meeting with the
Homeowners Aasocietion was scheduled for February 28, 1995, et the Senior Center. Ms. Wordell
recommended a Negative Recommandation. Mr. Viskovich moved for a Negative Declaration. Mr.
Brown seconded the motion.
Vote 4=0.
ERC Minutes
December 8, 1994
Page -3-
3. Application No. 1-U-95 sad 2-EA-95
ApplicauU HuuU~-
Location: Homestead Road and Grant
This is a application for a Use Permit, to contrast a 6,480 square foot ~ building. The project is on
Hom~tead where Homest~d meets Grant Road. This is the last pazcel before you enter Los Altos
properties. The staff3 primery enviromnental concern was whether there was h-~dous materials that had
¢ont~mlnnt~l the Mils. There had been, but MF. I-7%,men was able to provide a cleerance letter for the
site, so the site had been cleaned up. The only other concern would have been traf~c. The traffic division
reviewed the proposal and found they had no concerns about the new use ~ the level of service or
whether a percent of traffic increase on Highway 280. Ms. Bjorman explained due to no foreseeable
environmontai impacts the planning staff was asking for a Negative Declaration. Mr. Cowen moved for a
Negative Declaration. Mr. Robem seconded the motion.
Vote20. (Mr. Viskovich not present)
4. Application No.: 2-U-95 and 4-EA-95
Applicant: Whit Lan
Prol~-rty Owner g,,~li Bate
Location: 20007 Stevens Creek Boulevard
This is a Use Permit to locate a 6,400 squm'e foot rL~anrant in an existing building which is located nt the
northwest comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Binney. The proposal is for a ret~,,~ant to occupy a
portion of an ex~i~ug 9,000 square foot building which had been occupied by a music store, copy store and
a real estnte agency. The only concern the staffhad is whether the restaurant use would have any traffic
impacts ut the intersection. The traffic department found there would nut be ,my level of service impact.
Since there are no environmental impacts Ms. Bjorman recommended a Negative Declaration. Mr. Brown
moved for a Negntive Dochmtion. IVir. Viskovich seconded the motion.
Vote 4-0.
5. Application No.: 1-Z-95 and I-EA-95
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner Varions
Location: Vnrions hillside locations in the Inspiration Heights are
genentlly bounded by Voss Avenue, Alcade Road, Santa
Lucia Road, San Juan Road, and Stevens Creek Canyon.
This is a Rozoning proposal to various hillside properties in the Inspiration Heights area from, RI-10, R1-'
40, and RHS to RHS - end OS, or other appropriate zoning designations as described in Exhibit A.
Excluded parts are areas zoned BQ. The purpose of this rezoning is to ~ the properties in conformance
with current General Plan desi~nntions and the General Plan policy in effect for the hillside. These
~uidelines provide a more stricter regulnfion of development in hillside ereas, limiting house sizes, limiting
the mount of grading, protecting natural feature, and avoiding geological hn~,,ds. This is really to
enhallce the environment and there are no foreseeable environmental problems. Mr. June ~ta~d thnt staff
wns recommending ii Negative Declaration. Mr. Brown moved for a Negative Declnration. Mr. Viskovich
seconded the motion..
Vote 4-0.
ADJOURN1V~.NT