Loading...
PC 06-14-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED MINUTES 6:00 P.M. JUNE 14, 2005 MONDAY CUPERTINO COMMiJNITY HALL The special Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 2005 was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Gilbert Wong Chairperson Wong said that a time limit would be put on the General Plan as the Gate of Heaven Cemetery application would be heazd between 8 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Gilbert Wong Vice Chairperson: Marty Miller Commissioner: Angela Chen Commissioner: Taaglu Saadati Commissioner: Lisa Giefer (arrived after rol[ ca[l) Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki City Planner: Ciddy Wordell Assistant Ciry Attorney: Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 10, 2005 Planning Commissian meeting: Com. Giefer requested the following changes: Page 2, Chairman Wong: Change "Rural Journal" to read "World Journal" Page 22, Com. Giefer, middle of page, first bullet: Change "out the" to read `Yor the" Page 27, Com. Giefer, middle of page: Change: "I open iN' to read "I open it for discussiod' Motion: MoHon by Com. Chen, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve the May 10, 2005 minutes as ameuded. (Vote: 3-0-1; Com. SaadaH abstain; Com. Giefer absent) May 24, 2005 P[anning Commission meering: Com. Giefer requested the following changes: Page 3, Mark Lee: Change "Regnart Court" to read: "Regnart Road" MoNon: Motion by Vice C6air MiRer, second by Com. Saadati, to approve the May 24, 2005 minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Giefer absent) Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 2 June 14, 2005 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: • Chairperson Wong noted receipt of a letter regarding Oak Valley Cemetery. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: 2. EXG2005-08 (EA-2005-02) Hillside exception for a new 6,500 squaze foot Martin Bernstein residence on a prominent ridgeline with slopes 22362 Regnart Road greater than 30% and exceptions to the maximum wall height on the downhill elevation and to exceed the mvcimum grading quantities. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Request postponement to the June 15, 2005 Special Planning Commission meeting. Maryrose McCarroll, resident: • Asked when Application EXC-2005-08 would be postponed to, and asked if [he public could attend the meeting. Chair Wong said that the application would be heard on June 15, 2005 and the public was welcome to attend. MoHon: MoHon by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to postpone Application EXC-2005-08, (EA-2005-02) to the June 15, 2005 Special Plauuing Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Giefer absent) ORAL COMMLTNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. GPA-2004-O1, EA-2004-17 General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan. City of Cupertino Subject: Preliminary recommendations Citywide bcation Tentative City Council date: July 19, 2005 Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, reviewed the progress on the General Plan meetings: • We have discussed the jobs/housing balance issue which is the numbers of distribution of commerciaUoffice hotels and residential units in Table 2A. • Discussed a policy last night related to conversion of commerciaUoffice and industrial lands to residential or mixed use, the revision is on the dais. • We can resume the preliminary recommendations from the last meeting. • The document has been revised with suggested changes from the previous meeting. • Referring to Table 2A, Allocation Table, at the previous meeting, the Planning Commission looked at reducing some of the office squaze footage which remains the same, to help address the jobs/housing balance and to recognize that some of this buildout would not be needed. What you wanted to see were the changes to the residential, and in looking at residential we are showing now what the additional potential buildout is; you wanted that total to be 2,000 units over the 2005 built; hence the total is 2,000 now and the total buildout is 23,097 units which is what you wanted to see. There was agreement under the neighborhoods that only 200 additional units for other areas would be available; that is shown as 200 for a total of 17,776 neighborhood units. • Heart of the City drew a little; there was some talk about it being too high; since we had to lose some units that is where we took some away; the Homestead Road azea was left at 777, Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 3 June 14, 2005 the lower number of the two shown last evening. The biggest change is in the employment areas; much of your previous discussion was about not knowing whether any of those azeas were going to buildout residentially and they would also be subject to these conversion policies if you want to take that into account before you add residential. They don't have any potential except through other azeas, and that number is 551; and that was the total of all the additional potential that was in NoRh DeAnza, City Center and Vallco Park North. Those could be distributed in the employment centers or as we discussed, there is flexibility among all the different areas and anybody could draw on it through the Public Hearing process. Com. Chen: • For the commercial centers, the total increase yesterday I saw was 1,055 units, and that was distributed slightly different. I also did not hear any consensus on last nighYs distribution, what was the basis for changing the number? o Heart of the City was 681 previously, and it was changed to 640; o Vallco South recommended change to 652; it stayed at 700. o Homestead and other azeas there is no change. o Employment Centers - yesterday's total change was 561; today's total change is 651. Ms. Wordell: • We need to lose 348 units; there was consensus in other areas. • There wasdt specific direction about Heart of the City and it seemed that there was some discussion that it was overly generous; Aomestead Road was already out there, if we stuck with the lower number, that would be a way to bring the numbers down. The other idea I said was we would just amalgamate all the potential in employment azeas into one pool. Com. Chen: • The total proposed unit is 23,097 instead of 23,000; maybe that is the 97 units increase that also is a factor of the distribution being different today than yesterday. • Said she understood they agreed on 23,000 last night; now looking at a reduction of 348 units. Mr. Piasecki: • Yesterday some commissioners talked about 23,000 and others about 2,000 over existing; you can decide if you want to leave the 97 in or remove the 97. • There were some conflicting discussions. Chair Wong: • Suggested reducing it to 97 units; remove it out of the pool of other azeas in the employment center. Com. Chen: • Yes, but is that an agreeable total numbers of units, 23,000? Chair Wong: • My recollection is that we agreed on 23,000. Ms. Wordell: • Asked if they wanted to take 97 off the 551? Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 4 June 14, 2005 Chair Wong: • Said that would be the best area. Com. Chen: • • I would like to see some reduction of commercial center; but yesterday we also talked about the Master plan. Aow do the two work together, if there is a Master plan that comes up with enough units, that is different; perhaps more than what we allow. Ms. Wordell: • It would have to be what you all agreed to. For Vallco Park South, I am not certain there was agreement to go lower than that. One of the issues was there may be real projects out there that will need 700; that would be something to debate if others were wanting to see that lower. Com. Chen: • Suggest that to increase the number in other azeas or under commercial centers, since we don't have the Master plan yet, should we put the units in the pool and wait for the plan to materialize? • Under commercial center; I have two recommendations; one is under commercial centers; we increase the other area of the pool of units, by taking it from Vallco South. • For the employment centers we reduce the 97 units from Ms. Wordell: • You take 97 units off of 700. Com. Chen: • Out of the 551, we reduce the 700 and put the difference into the other azeas; make it more undesignated units until the master plan is done. • I would like to see a reduction in Vallco South, and it can be achieved in one of the two ways; one is to take the entire 97 from Vallco South or we can assign more units from Vallco South to other azeas within the commercial centers and reduce the 97 from the employment centers as Chair Wong suggested. Chair Wong: • Is there agreement that it should be 23,000 even? Com. Saadati and Vice Chair Miller: Yes Chair Woug: • Relative to taking out the 97, I should clarify; although I see Com. Chen's viewpoint, I would put the 97 somewhere else. I will sha~e my idea on Vailco South after the other Planning Commission provide input. I would like to increase it and will explain why. • The reason I want to increase Vallco South will be dependent on the information we get on the infrastructure, traffic and schools. Based on the Hewlett Packazd property and also the Vallco Fashion Park, there are two projects coming in; if they take up all 389 units and if they do then for other projects in Vallco Pazk South they cannot build their units, because this projection is for 20 years and we might use up this projection in the next 6 months. Com. Chen: • Since this is the General Plan, are we going to accommodate a project that is forthcoming without any master plan; my suggestion is to reduce Vallco South to the amount that is Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 5 June 14, 2005 adequate but not to reduce from a total of the commercial center units. In case the master plan is acceptable to all of us, we can assign the units to Vallco South. Chair Wong: • I see what you aze saying, but ~nfortunately the train has already left the station and there is already a projected 300+. Mr. Piasecki: • You need not be concerned about the fact that there aze two applications that will be pending shortly, because in the case of Toll Brothers/ Hewlett Packard they aze asking for their own General Plan amendment; they need to make the case for whatever number they are going to present to the city. You can identify whatever number you feel is appropriate and make that your recommendation and in the event they ue successful, that could be over and above this number depending on ultimately what you and the City Council decide. • You still have flexibility; you aze not locking yourself in iF you were to take it out of there. From our standpoint, the 551 other employment center azeas is easier to remove from, because those aze azeas that are going to take probably longer and it is a lazger pool and it would be easier to accommodate it in that. That is why you are having the discussion; as the Commission you can reach consensus. Com. Chen is making a point that she would like everyone to be in agreement. Com. Chen: • I would like to plan this where we think it is right and then if any of the development clients can make their points, or show us an acceptable plan, it will benefit both the developers and the community, then we can increase the units. • You might go over the 700 units, but should we allow the additional 389 units based on the potential development plan, is really the key point, and I think it is correct. Vice Chair Miller: • Some speakers questioned how the calculations were done; how did we decide on the formulas; did they come close to ABAG, and aze ABAG's numbers legitimate; a general general discussion of where the numbers are coming from. Ms. Wordell: • ABAG numbers were distributed; that was the 2,325 adopted in the housing element in 2001, the Task Force essentially kept that same number and as you talked about jobs housing balance, you wanted to make that balance better, so that the numbers stazted rising a little.. Vice Chair Miller: • The question is more of how did we decide on how many employees per X number of square feet; is that a number that was done empirically or was it done by actually counting heads. What is the basis for that? Mr. Piasecki: • Counting heads. We had data from our own employers; also ABAG does their own projections and they tend to be higher because they incorporate azeas that have more manufacturing than we do, so their employee count per 1,000 squaze feet is more like 4, and ours is more like 3-1/2 to 3. • The other part of your question was the legitimacy of the ABAG numbers; and it is almost inelevant because ABAG did a projection that carried us through next year and it wasdt intended that this was not a way of fulfilling the housing needs of Cupertino, they were only Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 6 June 14, 2005 saying that through this tune period you should be attempting to identify sites and allowing development to occur up to that number; in no way does that take caze of the problem as we can all appreciate. Vice Chair Miller: • I am concerned about putting large numbers of allocations into undesignated buckets; staff mentioned that there may be an issue in terms of evaluating the impact on the EIR; the other reason I hesitate to do that is it is really begging the question. • We need to decide tonight where it is most reasonable to put these units; we may not want to allocate them all tonight, but I think we aze not answering the question of where it makes most sense to put them unless we actually try to put them somewhere. If we just put them all in one large bucket and allocate them later, we havedt made the decision, we are deferring the decision until later. I would rather try to keep the undesignated buckets as low as possible at least to start with to see where it is most reasonable to put these because that is the challenge we have to work on tonight. • Whether it is 551 or 451, that number is still a little too high and we should have that discussion about Vallco Pazk even though we want to do a General Plan for a Vallco Park South, that still is a separate issue in my mind from how many allocations oF housing units aze reasonable for that particular azea which is a sepazate discussion. • The other issue that I have here is when I look at the Heart of the City I am still concemed that we have reduced that number a little bit to 286 but we aze basically saying up and down Stevens Creek Boulevard and I can't see where we aze going to put 286 units on Stevens Creek Boulevard. I would like to hear from my colleagues in terms of their feelings on the amount of intensity that goes into Stevens Creek Boulevard and whether it makes sense to try to allocate most of these numbers as much as possible to the particulu azeas in town to see if it all fits and makes sense. After we do that if you then want to back some of those units off, that is fine; but at least we Imow the likelihood is that those units and those undesignated buckets are going to go to specific azeas. Com. Chen: • I think it is a good point that we decide where the units go, but I think it is important to see where the increases are going to be as suggested. If we look at the total of 2,000 units increase, we are looking at 1,062 units located in the commercial centers, that is more than 50% of the increase in the commercial centers; basically we should discuss if that is what we want to see, if more than 50% of an increase should occur in the commercial centers or else where in the city should it be concentrated or spread out. • The second issue we have to discuss is within the commercial centers, and within each category, where does the increase go? If we look at our commercial centers, 1/3 of the increase, 35% of the increase goes to Vallco South. I understand that is where the land is, but does that make sense, and how is that going to impact the neighbors in that azea, is another issue we have to tkunk about. • We need to first agree on 23,000 total units, is that an acceptable number, and after 2,000 unit increase, where should they go, should they be concentrated on the commercial centers or should they be spread out. • The third, we need to see within the different centers, where does it make sense to assign most of the units. Chair Wong: • I think all of us agreed that it would be 23,000, and since Lisa wasn't here, just wanted to make sure that was the number we agreed on. Cupercino Planning Commission Special Mtg 7 June 14, 2005 Com. Giefer: • Yes that is what we agreed to. Chair Wong: • Now what Com. Chen is trying to say is that we have to put these housing units and she had a good point is dividing it evenly in employment center, commercial center, vs. the neighborhoods. Com. SaadaN: • I think we need to provide some flexibility because even though we start distributing, I would say it azbitrarily leads to a different azea of town. In a yeaz or two the situation may change, so we need to have some flexibility to be able to say Aye or Nay in the future, so having a pool gives us the flexibility; with the total of 2,000 put in a pool ef3~~, those 551 may not happen, so thaYs a good thing. • ABAG numbers are 2,300; we are below that. • I am not objecting to having a lazge pool because that provides more flexibility as the time goes on, if we have more information available s~ we can make better informed decisions. • The other area as faz as Vallco North and South comparing the table we got last night, there was proposal to have 200 more in Vallco South which t~sE is not there anymore. The number is very close; if you take the 97 and proportionally reduce the azea, I think it may come up with a number that makes sense. Chair Wong: • Since we are going to reduce it down to 23,000, where do you want to take away the 9'7 units? Com. Saadati: • I don't have a problem proportionally taking it where you have a higher number; 97 is not that difficult to do. You can take some from Vallco North, Vallco South and some from Homestead or proportionally across the boazd. Vice Chair Miller: • I would take the 97 out of the undesignated in the employment center. Com. Giefer: • The numbers that aze before us this evening aze not much different than the figures I did before coming in here where I would allocate units. Some of the numbers are a little higher, some are lower than I would put them. I think we need to look at where we have the most potential to build out and where we will be the least intrusive on existing neighborhoods. • I would lower the Heart of the City a little; Vallco Park South seems a little high; Homestead Road I would go up a little, perhaps round it up to 300; NoRh DeAnza Boulevard I allocated something there, but I would take down the other and would be more evenly distributing; because I heard what staff said last evening about some of the pazallel streets along DeAnza Boulevard toward the back; there aze some older apadment buildings there that abut up to existing neighborhoods and I think that at some point those may be redeveloped, they are two story buildings and may be redeveloped at some point as three story buildings. • I would allocate more to North DeAnza because I see potential along there for redevelopment. • Monta Vista I left at 87; Valley Oak is built out; Fairgrove remains the same; other azeas for neighborhoods I added 200; Heart of the City down to 221; Vallco Park South 300; Homestead Road 300; other azeas 94; North DeAnza 100; City Center 100; Vallco Park North 200; Bubb Road zero; totaling 2,000. (Approx. 1,600) Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 8 7une 14, 2005 . I thought the conversation going on when I came in was very good; I would be happy to create an employment center other and allocate some units into that bucket and take them out of the employment center numbers. The other conversation was the discussion relating to a master plan for the Vallco North and South area. Is Were any way for us to just allocate between Vallco Park South and North, some units to a master plan, I would agree with that; take all the units out of Vallco and all the units that we perceive as being Vallco Pazk North, Vallco Park South, Vallco housing, I would put those all in the master plan and as we see plans that come to us with merit, we make that a separate bucket as part of the master plan and allocate them out. I would designate that all as a special plan and I would support that. Chair Wong: • I think we all agreed to 2,000 in addition to 2005 built out. • I can understand where Com. Chen is coming from and with what Com. Giefer suggested, it might be a happy medium since it does address Vice Chair Miller's suggestion that puts some numbers in the employment center that if we do agree to do either through a conversion policy or General Plan amendment there is a limit. The numbers she has suggested are feasible to me even though I don't like building into employment centers; at least there is a lunit. If this adds to 2,000 I think this is a good starting point for me to think about it and analyze on June 28~'. • Clarified that the subject was how many housing allocations, the conversion policy of going from industry to housing, converting industry zones to housing units; and the preliminary recommendations. • Relative to the calculations, he said they could go with 1600 units if agreeable with the Planning Commission. • To solve the jobs/housing imbalance, we need to reduce the office or commercial, and I would rather reduce the ofFice as it is not presently doing well. Vice Chair Miller: • If we do that, we need to reduce the amount of squaze footage of oFfice space in the General Plan further. Mr. Piasecki: • Said that an additional 400 units would have to be taken out of the 2,000. Ms. Wordell: • Relative to conversions, the new draft was handed out; are there any suggestions? • Mr. Piasecki made some changes to shorten it and make the criteria stand out stronger; entitled Maintaining Cohesive Commercial Centers and Office Pazks. Mr. Piasecki: • This is a policy that says we value having cohesive commercial centers and office pazks; that they are necessary for a healthy sales tax base for the city and to retain opportunities for existing businesses to expand. • Named Cupertinds major cohesive centers. • Said many people have the impression that office parks generate a lot of sales tax, and as shown on the map, of the top 100 sales tax producers in the community; a lazge part of our office parks do not generate sales taxes, and that is an important factor. It doesn't negate that businesses need room to expand, but it does not support the idea that they necessarily pay sales tax instead oF city or business to business taxes. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 9 June 14, 2005 Mike Foulkes, President, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce: ~ • We appreciate looking at this issue; it is very important and one that we at the Chamber struggle with just as you have and the City Council has. We need to increase housing in the city; we all know that and it is something we aze working towazd. At the same time we have to make sure that we aze protecting our commercial and industrial zones which aze a dying resource in this town. Unfortunately we have had an interesting economy from having 100% occupancy of everything in this town just 5 yeazs ago, to having lots of space available and that tide is reversing. • Apple Computer has already gathered Ya million square feet of office space this year and everytkung you see on Stevens Creek that is available, we have taken up and continue to look for spots in the city, and aze coming up short. • It is an interesting time in our city's history, especially looking forward on a plan that is going to last at least 10 years, to make sure that as we are looking at where that housing goes and the need to increase that housing, we are not sacrificing what little remaining industriaUcommercial we have. At the Chamber we have looked at policies which have some similarities to the policy before saying you have to look at everything to some degree on a case-by-case basis, but that this body especially needs to be looking at the long term. • Whereas housing is pazamount now and there is speculative housing going on, that may not last and our commercial and industrial azeas once they aze gone, will never come back. We are not going to be taking out housing and putting in light industrial any time soon. From the Chamber's perspective where there is marginal commercial azeas on a case-by-case basis, that have no commercial value, we will come to you and support those as turning into housing. • What we ue seeing now in this town is a lot of speculation going on, where a lot of C ciass office space that should be rehabilitated and tumed into better class office space, is being purchased on spec basis and with the hope that the Planning Commission and City Council will turn it over to residential. We worry about that, because if you look at our tax generation matrix, the No. 1 and 2 sales ta~c providers in this town aze the large office pazk developments, Apple and Hewlett Packazd. Those types of sales tax generators cannot exist in this town unless you have a lazge pazcel with a similar use, and if we allow through the General Plan process to have small infill projects, the worry is that we will lose all of the possible future developments of those types of property and unfortunately we will be losing businesses to places like Milpitas that have millions of square feet of empty office space. • While we appreciate the concept that we will look on a case-by-case basis, we would suggest that things really be tightened up to say we are going to put boundaries azound our few existing commercial and industrial azeas and make sure that those are protected because the General Plan needs to be a blueprint for everyone. If we allow random speculation to go on with the hope that should you buy it, it will eventually be turned into another use, I don't think that as something as keepers of land use, you would want to see. On the other hand, at the Chamber, we believe on a case-by-case basis there are proper[ies in this town that are commercial now, that have no real value here or in the future and have been unfottunately isolated. In those instances, we will come and support our development friends and everyone else who want to turn those into housing. • Again, the Chamber suppor[s housing, but in the General Plan the worry with this is it may not be enough to ensure that those few azeas we have left remain. As you have seen in the last six months, a lot of speculation about what is going to happen in terms of commercial, but almost all the commercial space we have now needs to be upgraded. • If it is either being purchased and transferred to housing it takes it off the market; as the economy is turning azound and Cupertino is a hot property; there is a lot fewer squaze footage in this town available than in Milpitas and Sunnyvale and other places. If we just let the market decide as of today, we will have a city of all housing and we will lose all those zones. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 10 June 14, 2005 That is our worry, and again we want to make sure the document you are creating goes 1 Q 20 years in the future and not just what is important today. Com. Giefer: • Mr. Foulkes summarized my views on this item very succinctly, and I think that what we lose as we turn industriaUcommercial into housing is the opportunity in the future. • This is a 20 year plan, and I think that maintaining cohesive wmmercial centers and parks document is very good for the criteria today. I don't know because of the level of detail, if it will stand the test of time. The criteria may change in 5 yeazs, it may change in 10, 15, or 20 years; and I think it is just too much information to put in the General Plan. • I suggest on Page 16 of the matrix summarizing changes, the original Administrative Draft contain verbiage regarding the conversion of commercial lands to residential; it just says that the commercially designated land may be considered for conversion to residential uses where it does not eliminate existing or potential neighborhoods serving commercial uses or contradict Heart of the City policies. If we must have something, which I think there is a majority that supports it, I would rather have language like this and use this as a guideline. • I think it is an excellent guideline for today, but it may not be the right criteria in the future. It may not live with us for 20 years; whereas I think the other verbiage is general enough, and perhaps if we add something about referring to the guideline in planning. • I think I would rather have this as a sepazate document, because I think the criteria for conversion may get tightened up in time as we case-by-case evaluate and perhaps grant changes. • I am concemed that we aze going to make a decision about knowing the long term financial implications of this, because we are not a city rich with money now. Com. Chen: • I just want to find the page Com. Giefer is referring to; Page 16 on your dais. • We aze providing clarity to this issue but whether it is in the guideline or General Plan I haven't decided. What I want to talk about is the potential to conveR the use of the land from one use to the other, but we are not reducing the total squaze footage of the commerciaUindustrial use. The same goal of having enough commercial/industrial space to provide a revenue to the city can be achieved through increasing the density of certain land use azeas. • I see a different way to look at it, the language already provided in the General Plan to make the conversion, there is a need to provide some clarity to how the conversion should happen; so that keeps us away from the spot zoning issue. I agree that we should not take the land or spaces away from industrial and commercial use to protect the city for the long term economic benefits and also to make the plan flexible enough for the next generation to use. • I wan[ [o stress the importance to have some clarity in the General Plan to review the use of a particulaz piece of land; and also the total squaze footage for the commerciaUindustrial doesn't have to be reduced; the same usage can be achieved in a different way. Vice Chair Miller: • Both languages talk about allowing conversion but what is currently in the General Plan is the looser language. I agree with Com. Chen that I would rather have a tighter language which makes it hazder for conversion to occur. • If we go with the general language, it is easier for conversion to occw and I think we all agree, partiwlarly based on Mr. Foulkes' comments, that we want to be very cazeful about conversion; and this policy that staff has drawn up makes it hazder for conversion to occur; I am inclined to go with that as opposed to the general language which leaves it more open. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 11 June 14, 2005 Com. Saadati: • I concur with Vice Chair Miller; this language states that these will be evaluated on case-by- case basis which gives more option at the time to see what the impact is. • We need to look long term - 10, 20 yeazs and this gives us the ability to do that if the commercial situation is going to change; slow for the last yeazs and is now picking up. . If it does it as a guideline, we should include it because the language on Page 16 is very general, and without any attachment to that, I think that is too loose. Chair Wong: • To save time I already made comments last night, but my comments represent what Com. Giefer said. Mr. Piasecki: • Relative to Table 2A, if you were to remove 400 dwelling units from the General Plan, at the ratios discussed yesterday, which is 1.5 workers per dwelling unit, you get 600 workers, which translates to 200,000 square feet reduction required from the office. Vice Chair Miller: • That is fine, as long as we understand that it says that the amount of office space that we will develop fiuther in the future over the 20 year period is only 30Q000 squaze feet, unless there is some conversion and then it would go back into the pool. Mr. Piasecki: • You just heazd from Mr. Foulkes that having potential to add is important; I would caution against taking that out, and leave it the way it was originally because it gives the Apples and Hewlett Packards that aze in fact sales tax producers in the community, the opportunity to expand on their own sites. I would be cautious about getting that too low. Com. Giefer: • Suggested that we increase the other areas for commercial centers and the other ueas for employment centers, and put 200 additional in them, so the commercial other areas, residential would then be 294 and the employment center other azeas would be 200, instead of zero. It would bring us back up to about 2,000; and we could put the Delta units into employment center other areas, if those buckets aze not too large. Those buckets could also be used if we ended up having a Master plan for Vallco. Com. Chen: • Said she suppoded Com. Giefer's suggestion. Com. Saadati: • I was fine with the original information based on what we heazd from Mr. Foulkes, and I think we don't want to reduce the potential office space. If that will give us the flexibility, I am willing to go along with that. Vice Chair Miller: • So we aze going to add 400 more back to bring it up to 1900. Com. Chen: • If we change the other azea for commercial centers from 94 to 294, if we add the 400 back we are at 2002 units, so we can take 2 units out. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 12 June 14, 2005 • Chair Wong: • When you put 294 in other areas, the concem I have is it gives too much flexibility; I would like to allocate those where they are eventually go. Vice Chair Miller: • I agree with that, it was my earlier comment; but I am worried that we aze putting too many units into the employment centers. Chair Wong: • I agree. Vice Chair Miller: • I support 200 in Vallco North and the Task Force put 81 into Bubb Road, and we have 100 in there, 81 in there and to have something on the order of 100 for the possibility of developing Bubb Road, is fine, and that other 100 needs to go into a different area. The only other azea we can logically put it is into the commercial center, so that it has either got to be distributed in my view either into Vallco South or Homestead Road eventually. Chair Wong: • I still believe that Bubb Road should be zero, and the other azea shou(d be 200; if for any reason there is a good project that there should be housing in Bubb Road like senior housing or Vista Village. We can always take the allocation out of the other azea and put it in there, but I want to make a strong statement on Bubb Road is that, which I still consider as a Monta Vista employment center, is that I want to keep that area low impacted. Mr. Piasecki: • The list retains that as zero. Chair Wong: • The 294 in other azeas is just too high a number to leave in there; and I think we have to give direction toward folks who aze developing the city; I agree with Vice Chair Miller who said to take 50 or 100 and put it into Vallco South or Homestead Road. • It seems like we aze almost there. Com. Saadati: • We have to reduce the 294 to 292 to get the 2000; maybe we leave 100, 150 there and then the balance of it divided into Vallco North and South, or divided it in thirds, and put it on the other azea under employment center. Chair Wong: • I am not worried about the 2, but wanted a consensus on employment center; 100 for North DeAnza, 100 for City Center, 200 for Vallco Park North and 200 for other azeas. Vice Chair Miller: • I think 200 is too much for other azeas; I would like to reduce that to 100 and move it to the commercial centers. Com. Giefer: • I am still contemplating the idea of master planning for the Vallco azea and if we don't tightly allocate all of those units, then I feel that it will give us greater opportunity to allocate them as part of any master planning we can do. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 13 June 14, 2005 Ms. Wordell: • Said they added some wording based on what was said last night to the Vallco policies, which would be for a master plan for future development. It would call for it in the General Plan as directed at last nighYs meeting. Mr. Piasecki: • When you do the master plan, if you decide that we should have more units in South Vallco and move them from some other azea, you can do that, and you aiso take a look at this plan periodically; and change the plan again if you need to. There is a lot of flexibility. Vice Chair Milier: • Again, we asked Mike Foulkes to talk to us about his concerns on the employment centers; I know we can move things around and things are flexible, but still we aze setting a direction and we aze starting out by saying we are going to keep the number of housing units in the employment centers to a minimum. • I would rather put them in a different place to just set the tone. Moving them back should be a little difficult. • We have agreed that we should be doing a master plan; that is a separate question. The question we aze addressing now is where should we allocate units relative to the employment centers or the commercial centers, and I think it is more important as the rest of us have said, that we want to be careful about our employment centers. We want to keep the number of housing units in those centers to a minimum. That means they have to go into the commercial center because the other altemative is the neighborhoods and we don't want to put them there. Chair Wong: • I agree with Vice Chair Miller that this is the best compromise that we can get. It gives the flexibility in the commercial centers, by having 392 in the other areas, we reduce the other areas employment centers to 100; we have three commissioners who say yes. Mr. Piasecki: • I think you decided earlier that you wouldn't go above 23,000, in which case you would have to take another 97 out, since these numbers add up to 2000, you could start with the other areas under commercial centers and take out 92 and get that down to 300. You need to take 5 more out of Heart of the City. Com. Chen: • I am okay with this one; but I do want to go back to Com. Giefer's earlier point to provide more incentives for this master plan; what she suggested eazlier was to put Vallco Pazk South and North together and to provide 500 units for the Vallco master plan and additional units can be allocated from other areas. I would like to heaz comments on that one. Mr. Piasecki: • That could be a policy statement, that says you will consider relocating the units to Vallco South if we get a comprehensive master plan; and we don't have to change the numbers at all; you could leave the numbers the way they aze and from a policy standpoint, say we got this and we are happy with it; we could move units azound. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 14 June 14, 2005 Com. Chen: • I am happy to see the other area units increase because I feel it provides the flexibility that we are all looking for in the General Plan, and it also provides an opportunity for density bonus. • In general, I agree with all the numbers, but I would like to encourage them with the Vallco master plan concept. Chair Wong opened the public hearing. Deborah Hill, resident: • She said her main concern is people speeding through CupeRino's public streets that are unsafe for bike riders. She mentioned areas on Stevens Creek, Stelling, Rodriguez, and Torre where it is dangerous for bike riders. • She said she has had many close calls to getting hit by cazs. • She expressed concern about jaywalkers and the need for more patrolling on the public streets. • Asked that something be done about the unsafe conditions on the streets. Lynda Wyckoff, Regnart Gate Keepers: • Oppose the opening of the Regnart Path. • She presented a petition with 351 signatures opposing the proposed trail. • Pointed out that along the path from beginning to end, there aze approximately 150 homes on either side of it and every home was polled; only two homes on the path supported the path. • She read the contents of the petition into the record. The position of the petition was that the Cupertino residents along the proposed trail route and all of those who will be adversely impacted by this proposed trail oppose it for the listed reasons. She read the remainder of the petition into the record. Chair Wong: • Pointed out to the trail group that No. 32, Policy 2-70, staFf has taken into consideration that your concem regarding evaluating any safety and security impacts and measures associated with trail development, so this is one mitigating factor that might help your group; and you also made some additional suggestions in regazds to the General Plan that I would ask staff to take into consideration and have the Commissioners comment on. Alan Loving, Taylor Woodrow Homes: • Afrer listening to the discussion about allocation of units, there are a number of concems. • I work for Taylor Woodrow Homes and we aze interested in developing a project in the Bubb Road area. You have looked at allocating the units on your chart, but taking the 100 units that aze suggested for the Bubb Road area, we would like to encourage you to maintain at least 94 of those units in that azea. • I think the criteria the staff provided this evening was a good criteria; they give the development community an opportunity to address very straightforwazd rules, or policy guidelines when developing or proposing a project, and it will help you in the future as you try to assess these proposals. • Additionally, while I understand that you are trying to allocate units throughout the city, you should maintain some flexibility because there ue going to be individual unique situations. • I request that you maintain some flexibility and not take out all the units in that particulaz area. Ed Shaffer, Attorney, representing Taylor Woodrow Group: • Said he was active in business groups in the Bay Area looking at the issue of jobs and housing and keeping a vital economy. The Bay Area Council, Silicon Valley Mfg. Group, a lot of other Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 15 7une 14, 2005 organizations have recognized that the shortage of housing is a serious problem and will be a detriment to attracting new employment to the Bay Area and especially to Cupertino and the South Bay azea. • Even with the changes to the chart, it shows currently 900,000 of new square feet of commercial and office space and with the conservative figures given by staff translates to 2,700 new jobs which at 1-1/2 employees per house translates to 1,800 new units just to accommodate the employees that you are planning for with nothing left over for helping to improve the imbalance of housing in the city. • There have been many speakers over the last few weeks talking about the need to provide more housing to reduce the imbalance you now have and I watched the Planning Commission whittle down the numbers that the Task Force had proposed from 2,200, to 2,000 and now to 1,900 over a 20 year life span. • I urge you to think about the consequences of these numbers and the 20 yeaz life span of the General Plan and the jobs/housing imbalance and what it will do to the economy of this area. • I suggest that you not give undo weight to short term capacity issues with the schools or other facilities; the school reps have admitted that in a few years their enrollments will be declining and that they will no longer have a problem. The General Plan is a 20 year plan, and you need to not place too much emphasis on that issue. If you are going to reject the idea of conversion of buildings such as the Results Way property and change the recommendations of the Task Force, I think the Planning Commission owes it to the City Council to explain its reasoning for that to help guide the City Council as it makes its final decision on this. • I would urge you to leave the 94 units which are in the current General Plan in the Bubb Road azea to accommodate that conversion project. Vice Chair MiRer: • We have increased the numbers over the Task Force recommendation; and the discrepancy is that the Task Force was basing their numbers on the yeaz 2000, and between year 2000 and yeaz 2005 they were between 800 and 900 units that were committed to. The 1,900 is in addition to what has already been committed to. • This is a difficult problem, there are people on all sides of this in town and we aze looking for a reasonable balance and acceptable compromise; we didn't focus on the imbalance that we had, but we said we were not going to make it worse; and actually when you do that and you do the math, by not making it worse, you actually make it better, because if you add them together the jobs/housing imbalance will come down as we move forwazd. • I wanted to clarify that because from your comments it diddt seem that you appreciated the difference in measuring points. Mr. Shaffer: • Said he understood. Mr. Piasecki: • It is worth mentioning that the Planning Commission has left 200 units in the other areas in neighborhoods which include Monta Vista and technically the Results Way property is on the other side of the railroad tracks; probably shouldn't be. • Also, you have 300 units in commercial centers in other azeas, another 100 units in employment centers; there aze probably enough units for the project to pull numbers from if you do not complete your approval process under the current General Plan. Chair Wong: • Steve, what you just said, in the neighborhoods for the 200 and other areas, I thought that was for neighborhoods only. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 16 June 14, 2005 Mr. Piasecki: • I stand corrected; that was for the 1,2,3,4 whatever lots here and there at some of the apartment sites, but nevertheless the comment still stands that you have sufficient units and you have policy structure that allows you to move them azound; even if they weredt able to complete their process under the current plan, there is enough flexibility under the new plan. Chair Wong: • Because the new employment center is that, leYs say that Vallco Park North couldn't commit to those 200 units; we could always pull those 200 units into Bubb Road if there was an exceptional project that meets the guidelines that we endorse. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • The ABAG numbers may be functionally obsolete; therefore attempting to plan to put these functionally obsolete housntg numbers azound the city, may be a moot point. • The ABAG numbers we are dealing with now aze five years old and don't reflect the current situation in Cupertino. The new ABAG numbers are supposed to be received in a year or two; everyone expects the new numbers to be much lower. Also why aze we building houses when there are no jobs in Cupertino? Are we building just for the sake of building? I think it would be a good idea to think about what impact these new housing units will have on different azeas of the city. At my end of town, allowing additional housing units will have a tremendous impact; in addition to the 6500 people on Stevens Creek from Lawrence Expressway to Finch Avenue, there aze also two hotels in Santa Claza on the other side of Stevens Creek. • The area the city has already impacted by traffic from on and off ramps to 280, Lawrence Expressway, cross traffic from Bollinger down Tantau to Stevens Creek and down to Homestead, [here is a crowded High school at Finch and Stevens Creek; the addition of the buildup of the Vallco Hewlett Packard sites azound Vallco Parkway, Stevens Creek, and Tantau impacts the traffic corridor along Stevens Creek Boulevazd. Subway Sandwiches at Tantau and Stevens Creek now often has no pazking. • What happens afrer the buildout at Vallco? May I suggest a drive-through sandwich shop? Perhaps more of the shopping will have to be done in Santa Claza or San Jose. May I also suggest that Finch Road be left in tact from Stevens Creek to Vallco Pazkway. I think you need that road for traffic flow. The building density there is already phenomenal. Mr. Piasecki: • Clarified that Finch Road in the current plans remains from Stevens Creek to Vallco Parkway. Dennis Whitaker: • ABAG numbers are wrong; they are 5 yeazs old. The gentleman from ABAG was here and said even though they are wrong, they still have to use them. If you have to err on the side of numbers, err downsize knowing that these numbers are inconect. • The President of the Chamber of Commerce said housing is paramount right now; I disagree. Fixing our financial base with sVong retail and shoring up our financial strength is probably more pazamount now. • What has been approved or being built now is the Oaks Villa where the Santa Bazbara Grill was, La Trevina, the Town Center, Adobe, Menlo Equities, Verona, Montalvo, Moreno Project on Rainbow and Stevens Creek, and what you are going to be considering is Taylor Woodrow and Toll Brothers. These are all housing; what has been said before is we have a lot of retail coming in. The focus needs to be changed to what is important to the citizens of Cupertino; get us a retail base; where is our bookstore, our Sees Candy, our stationery store; where aze the pazks, where aze the sewer unprovements and all the appropriate infrastructure prior to more Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 17 June 14, 2005 congestion? I don't heaz any of these things coming. Where is the emphasis on going out afrer a Bames and Noble or a Circuit City; all that money goes elsewhere when it could be helping Cupertino. • Don't conveR further retail to housing until our city's financial future can be guaranteed with a strong retail base. Retain our viable or to be viable employment centers. Don't lose the Oaks or the Crossroads, Portal Plazas, or Vallco or Marketplace; there are too many good chances for these things to turn out to be viable. If you start changing them to housing, we aze going to lose that and will have to keep on going to San Jose or Sunnyvale for all our wares. • Please help us get these things back. • Housing, housing, housing, that is all we have been approving. • Please remember those numbers that you keep pushing at us aze erroneous numbers; if you have to go on numbers, all the numbers that have been up here, downsize the numbers knowing that the numbers aze too high in the first place. Tom Huganin, La Roda Court: • Looking at the numbers of the originai General Plan Task Force, I noticed that you have been on a downwazd slope closer to those task force numbers. • I recommend that you keep going in the downwazd slope towazd what all the citizens worked on to get to. • Relative to the cohesive commercial centers and office pazks, we need to try to preserve these things as the Chamber of Commerce person said, if we build housing there, it is gone. We need to keep those employment centers, our lazge tax revenue generating office parks continue to do so. Vice Chair Miller: • To comment on Mr. Whitaker's concem on commercial, on the Table 2 chart, I notice that we already committed to something like 500,000 squaze feet of commercial in the Vallco area of additional commercial space. Mr. Piasecki: • There is a commitment in the development agreement for the 500,000 square feet of commercial; what will be coming we hope in the next few yeazs will be the AMC theaters portion which is approximately 80,000 squaze feet plus about 140,000 squaze feet that the City Council and Planning Commission approved, for the Rosebowl property and adjacent to the J. C. Penneys site, so that is a total of 220,000 that they aze planning for now. Vice Chair Miller: • We all agree that the Oaks is an important place and I believe it is under new ownerslup; and the city is amenable to having the center be successful and working with the new owner to make it so. Last evening we talked about severely limiting any housing in the Crossroads area. • I point out that I think we are in general agreement here and we are working towazds a reasonable solution for the city. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. MoHon: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. SaadaH, to approve the poticy oa maintaining a cohesive commercial centers and ottice parks per staft's recommendation. Chair Wong and Com. Giefer voted No. (Vote: 3-2-0) Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 18 June 14, 2005 Chair Wong stated that he voted no because he feels that conversion from industrial to housing is dangerous and it should be on a case-by-case and location by location. He said he agreed with Mike Foulkes from the Chamber of Commerce and also Com. Giefer. MoHon: MoNon by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Giefer, to approve Table 2A based on the Iast revolution of the table. Com. Chen: • Suggested that at the buildout the numbers aze not recalculated, and to ensure they get recalculated, because they aze voting on the additional potential, not the buildout number. Vice Chair Miller: • How difficult is it for allocations to move from one place to another from the undesignated, the other azeas, into specific locations? Mr. Piasecki: • There is a specific policy that says you can move units around, so there is a policy structure in the document that you aze going to be talking about. Ms. WordelL• • It is not a discussion item; but already text in the draft General Plan, so the difficulty of it would be through use permit, and the laiowledge that if you take it from one azea you would have to recognize that the azea will have less development, and there would be some environmental analysis relative to the impact of adding those units to a different azea. Vice Chair Miller: • It doesn't require a General Plan amendment, but it does require some discussion. Chair Wong: • I want to give flexibility to the folks on Bubb Road, that in an employment center, we are going to be flexible that we can take things out of the other areas if they need additional azeas in this project, that supercedes; they can take it out of North DeAnza, City Center, Vallco Pazk North and not take it out of the neighborhoods or commercial centers. (Vote: 5-0-0) Discussion ensued regarding additional meeting dates for the next week. There was consensus to meet on Thursday, June 23 at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Piasecki: • Explained to the audience members that the Plamiing Commissioners were residents appointed by the City Council to make recommendations on land use matters and the General Plan. They have been meeting £our times this week, starting on a Sunday afternoon, and also will have more meetings next week to complete the General Plan. • He commended their dedication and recognized they were volunteers serving the community. TRAILS: Vice Chair Miller: • Listening to the testimony given and the overwhelming feeling of the neighbors regazding the Regnart Trail, I think that it is reasonable with regard specifically to urban trails which touch Cupertino Planning Commission 3pecial Mtg 19 June 14, 2005 many residents, that we have a policy that states "in order for the trail to go in, two-thirds of the residents in that azea must agree to that." Com. Giefer: • My feeling is that trails are very difficult and if I was a resident and someone wanted to open a trail behind my home, the first thing I would want assurance on is safety, and I think that if the trail can be made safe for both the users of the trail as well as the residents, that is more uppermost in my mind than having the neighborhood vote on it. • Even if 100% are in favor of it, if the trail is not safe, it doesn't make sense to have it. I think safety is very important, and is it a Vail open 24 hours a day, which should not be the hours in a residential neighborhood. • I think there should be some way for the trail to be made fast, to keep the neighborhood safe. • I think there has to be greater scrutiny when we ue opening new trails in neighborhoods. Com. Saadati: • The trails also need to be utilized by a majority of the public and we need to make sure that there is going to be major utilization of it. Safety is a major concern and needs to be evaluated and if the majority of the community is willing to have trails, it is going to make the community more walkable, that in the long run may be a benefit to the community. • I support Vice Chair Miller's recommendation. Com. Chen: • Asked for clarification from Vice Chair Miller that two-thirds vote is to protect the property rights. Vice Chair Miller: . There is another precedent for doing this and that is if you dodt want sidewalks in your neighborhood, you can gather a petition. What I suggest is, when we aze talking specifically about urban trails, there should be a policy that says that two-thirds of the neighbors going to be affected by the trail should be in favor of it, in addition to the requirement of looking at safety and security. It becomes more difficult to put in the urban trail unless there is general agreement that it is a good thing for the public and the residents living next to the trail as well. Mr. Piasecki: • From stafPs perspective, you may just as well take the trails out of the General Plan if you aze going to do that; it is simpler and easier and doesn't confuse anybody. The Los Gatos Creek Trail wouldn't have happened; the trail we are talking about along Stevens Creek watercourse wouldn't have happened under those circumstances. • What we would Like to see perhaps is if you want to make it stronger, is wording that might say that the trail must be predominantly on the other side of the creek away from homes. • I think the biggest feaz people have is that it is behind their fence; if you could put it on the other side of the creek sunilaz to the Civic Plaza and Regnart Creek Trail, you couldn't even have a trail on the library side of the creek under the rules you aze describing. It is easier to take it out and avoid the confusion of going out and getting a vote, because you wodt get it. • There is a problem with stating you are going to have that kind of a rule; again it is up to the Planning Commission how you want to make your recommendation; we will make our recommendation as well. Vice Chair Miller: • There are some azeas of the trail where there aze houses on both sides of it. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 20 June 14, 2005 Mr. Piasecki: • Under the rule I just described, you woulddt put them there. • Part of the idea of these trails, is to enhance the creeks themselves. Chair Wong: • Commented to the public that it was an emotional issue in that the public hearing has been closed. There will be other opportunities for the public to return and react to the Director's comments; he is just making suggestions on a good compromise and you are entitled to disagree. There ue other forms to do that and decorum is needed and respect for everyone's recommendations. Com. Chen: • It is a difficult position to make, but I do see the difference between sidewalk and the trail; the trail is open up for the citywide use, but I also understand the concems of the neighborhoods that will be directly impacted by the trail. • I think we should keep our focus on specific issues which is safety and we can defudtely use different kinds of suggestions in tying up the safety language to make sure that a trail is safe for both users and the neighbors. • I woulddt put the two-thirds vote in the language, just to support it for no reason at all. I think safety should remain the focus in reviewing any trail or any projects in the city. Chair Wong: • The issue is sensitive regazding urban trails. I think all the Planning Commission and public do support trails in general. Rural uails aze easier to support, but with urban trails, especially when they abut your home and property investment, people get emotional. • As staff said, there have been urban trails done in Almaden Vailey, and Los Gatos has been very controversial, and at the end some were successful and some folks dodt like it. From the sentiment heazd in this room, it sounds like we don't want it. • I support Vice Chair Miller's suggestion that it should be two-thirds, but this is just a recommendation. If there is not a majority of the Planning Commission, you can go to the City Council to make the recommendation as well. • What you aze suggesting is speciFically the Regnart Creek Trail and it is something you need to go to City Council and say that you dodt like it for this reason; but if you look at the policy staff suggested regazding safety and security, I think that the neighborhood can make a Logical argument that this is not the right thing to do for your pazticulaz situation. • It is not the end of the road, continue what you aze doing, but you need to respect the Commission, and the Council as well as staff recommendation. They aze just trying to find a solution to make it a win-win situation. Chair Wong: • Noted that the General Plan application would be continued until June 15, at 6:00 p.m. followed by a special meeting on June 23, and if needed, a special meeting on Monday, June 27 before the fmal recommendation on Tuesday, June 28`". Chair Wong declazed a recess. 3. U-2005-04 Use Permit to allow vertical mazkers and statuary at an Robert Lindberg (Gate existing cemetery. of Heaven Cemetery) 22555 Cristo Rey Drive Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 21 lune 14, 2005 Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the background of the application for a use permit to allow vertical markers and statuary in an existing cemetery, as set forth in the staff report. . Explained that the cemetery had a use permit through Santa Clara County and when annexed into Cupertino, a use permit was not previously granted through Cupertino. There was architectural review for some of the improvements, but not a use permit because they wanted to change one of the conditions since the County use permit. They came to Cupertino and applied for a use permit with the city. The use permit is to allow upright mazkers because the Santa Claza County use permit did not. • Illustrated the site plan which showed the proposed changes: a veterans' marker area, an upright mazker areas, niche feature, Pieta statue, and the crucifix. • A video presentation was shown illustrating the affected azeas of the cemetery and adjacent properties. • Potential questions might be: • How does the proposal affect the low profile chazacter of the cemetery? • How could the improvements be accommodated if they were reasonably hidden from view? ¦ Does the application and the screening unreasonably obstruct views? • How the change might be reasonably accommodated without severely compromising the interest of the applicant, neighbors and visitors to the cemetery. • The azea was zoned as part of the whole master plan for Oak Valley and is Planned Development. It is not legal non-conforming. • Relative to the history of the cemetery, Ms. Wordell said that in talking with County planners, they did not have any records; the original conditions of approvai were the only records that the cemetery and County had. There are no records of any additional architecture review after that and no written history on what was behind the condition of approval. • She said she had no evidence on file that vertical markers were permitted at the cemetery. • The recommendation is to discuss the item and continue the application to the August 23, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Wong: • Need clarity because many emails were received regazding the application relative to the veteran's memorial. • Regazding the process, did they go through the proper procedure to get the proper permits; that should be reviewed. There were also some concems about construction in the evening. Ms. Wordell: • That area of change was not on the use permit site plan that the cemetery submitted to us; at the same time they were planning to construct it, but had not included it and they should have, and they realized that they should have. In the meantime, they ordered those mukers and said that the veterans were expecting them for Memorial Day. We allowed them to put them up temporarily for Memorial Day and remove them after; and that is what they did. • There were letters handed out at the cemetery on Veterans' Day which asked people to submit their comments and they submitted them to us as part of their packet. Bob Linberg, Gate of Heaven Cemetery: • Introduced Bruce Hill, landscape architect who would speak later about landscaping. • He explained different traditions in honoring the deceased. People who come here are in a state of grieving; it is the only catholic cemetery in the area and in order to serve the families Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 22 June 14, 2005 as best we can, we need to be able to better fulfill their needs which is the reason this was started. • The cemetery is dynamic; over the long term by its nature it needs to adapt to meet the varying circumstances of what is going on now and in the future. • It is for the families who asked for a more catholic identity; that is who we are primarily serving and they have asked us repeatedly that we have an easier to see and easy to understand religious identity to the cemetery; presently there is almost none. It is for those same people that requested that catholic or religious identity that we aze requesting to put in the Pieta. • At the May meeting there was a lot of vocal opposition to a 32 foot crucifix with the screening; we have decided that a 28 foot crucifix would be more appropriate. As staff mentioned, the 60 inch box trees for screening are 28 feet tall and will be planted whether or not the proposal is approved. • We appreciate the unique character of the cemetery and the expectations of those with family members buried there to not disrupt the existing sections, which have flat memorials. It is for the families who wish to bury their loved ones and remember them with the traditional upright memorials that we request to place them on the edges of the cemetery. As shown in the site plan, there is nothing toward the middle. • He noted that they were back-to-back markers, with a 20 foot section of open space, two more back-to-back markers, and another 20 foot section of open space. It will not be the typical cemetery look which we do not want in this environment and o[hers don't want it either. • There aze several things we were planning to mitigate: a hedge along the back of the upper one; several of them will be close to a fence which borders the trail, which will have climbing roses to cover the fences. The upright memorials we aze requesting to cover three acres which is only 5.4% of the total usable cemetery land. With t3us request we aze currently at 25 and this would develop us up to 36, which is 8.4% of the total space devoted to uprights, and they aze at the far edges of the ceme[ery. • For the veterans and their families we request the addition of the service monuments, celebrating the branches of our anned forces and remembering our POWs and MIAs. • He discussed the landscape plan to replace the oleanders which were removed last fall. He said the requests were in the normal course of operating a cemetery and were in response to requests from families. • We have listened to the concems of the residents as well as recognized several points where site lines might be an issue, and have addressed them. We found out that there were at least two properties that have a substantial view into the cemetery; there is mature foliage along the section and we could plant some redwood trees to screen off the view into the cemetery from Hammond and not affect the view into the hills. • There was some concem that you could actually see into the cemetery from the turnazound. There is a fence line that will be planted and the biggest change is going to be what people see from the open space, and the trail looking down into the corporation yard is in need of some planting. Regazdless of the outcome of the permit process, oaks and redwoods will be planted so that people using the trails will not see the corporation yard. We will also make an effort to move the equipment. • He distributed a copy of a map. The issue of open space and the relationship to the cemetery has been raised by many persons, and we believe this can be better understood with some historical perspective. The gray azeas on the map are land (133 acres) that was donated by the church to the open space as part of the transaction when the O'Brien Group developed. Of that, 128 acres came out of the cemetery. It is important when looking at the cemetery in relation to the open space that we realize that the current open space was created from the cemetery; the cemetery was not carved out of the open space. • We feel that the belief the cemetery is necessarily part of the open space doesn't hold because we are a cemetery. We believe that the relationship of the cemetery and the open space has Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 23 June 14, 2005 already been altered far more by the existing 20 and 24 foot high mausoleum buildings which border the open space and the 34 foot high chapel, than any impact from the permit application requesting 30 inch high upright memorials. • There are large buildings bordering the open space and these buildings are more evident in the open space than 30 inch high memorials are going to be spaced 20 £eet apart. Lastly, we thought we had a positive meeting on May 18th and a lot of things were discussed. It was pointed out that we took over the responsibility for these ponds at the front of the canyon oak area around the tun~around; there aze two ponds that have been there for four or five years. Sadly, we have done a subpaz job in maintaining those ponds, part of the reason being that the ponds aze not well constructed and we have a budget that was given to us in an agreement with the O'Brien Group for only $5,000 per year to be expended on keeping the ponds maintained. We aze currently running at about $21,000 and it is anticipated that we will get to $24,000 to maintain them this yeaz. We contacted a landscape azchitect who has expertise in ponds, to give us an understanding of what the problem is; he is also going to develop several solutions and we will meet with the neighbors to see if we can work on the problem so that the ponds aze maintained properly and we are not spending $24,000 on a$5,000 budget. • Relative to the 36 existing upright mazkers, I found the original d'uector who did the original buildout. The contracts started in 1972 thru 1975 and after 1975 anyone that purchased a contract there was not allowed to put up an upright marker. We honored contracts when people came back after 19'75. There is no justification for the mukers; there are no records. Vice Chair Miller: • Several people wrote letters stating that they chose the cemetery for their loved ones because of the horizontal mazkers. He asked the applicant to comment. Mr. Lindberg: • Reiterated that they appreciated the unique chazacter of the cemetery and the expectations of those families with family members buried there to not disrupt the existing sections with flat markers. Nothing would go into an existing section that akeady has flat mazkers. • Noted that Alta Mesa in Los Altos did it effectively with upright markers around the edges and flat markers in the middle. He said they would not do anything to compromise that. • Said that only one section in the southeast comer has uprights close to a residential azea, up against an 8 foot high fence which will be covered by climbing roses. There will be no sight line to those from any of the homes. • Answered commissioners' questions about the niches, veterans' markers and funding for the veterans burial azea. Chair Wong opened the public hearing for public comment. Mark Edwards, Peralta Ct.: • Moved to Oak Valley one year ago. • Opposed to the application. • We purchased our homes in reliance of the open space nature of the azea and as you know the cemetery has been a memorial park with flat markers. Rancho San Antonio is a big draw. We feel that the proposed changes represent a signiFicant pazadigm shift in the way the cemetery is operating now and we believe that those changes affect the neighborhood as a whole, the open space, and will impact the residents and make the area less desirable, which will negatively impact property values. • We would not have purchased the homes had we seen this on the horizon. • The resulting impact on the character of the area will be negative. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 24 June 14, 2005 • There was a long process leading to the sale of the land to the O'Brien Group and the pazcel split, e[c. • He said he con[acted David Doyle, a former Planning Commissioner who was on the Commission at the time the O'Brien Group application was acted upon. He was surprised at what had happened went on to inform him that the land was all one parcel which required a parcel split and the Planning Commission and City Council were very conscientious and deliberate, and they approved the parcel split and development only upon the condition that all the constituents would be bound to honor the open space and pazk-like nature of the azea. • There aze many elements adopted in Oak Valley to honor this and to require this; as well as very strict CC&Rs that the residents aze bound by. • We have tremendous support from the neighborhood in keeping the cemetery the way it is. There is a petition from the residents in the staff packet. • The Mid Peninsula Open Space Regional Open Space District also opposes the application. • The change is not in keeping with the agreement everyone signed when the propedy was split. • Pointed out that the homeowners signing up for the covenant, codes and restrictions have no ability to change their use of the property and we do not feel that the cemetery should either. • Changing the chazacter of the property at this time would be problematic long term as it might establish a precedent for adjoining parcels. • We request that the Planning Commission stay true to the legacy, vision and cohesive open space requirements upon which the parcel was allowed to be divided and land developed, and deny the application. Vice Chair Miller: • If the cemetery effectively screens what they aze doing so that you cannot see it, is there an objection? Mr. Edwards: • It is a pazk now except for a few vertical markers wluch were (illegally) there when my home was purchased. • I think it is an issue; we all signed on to live next to a pastoral type of inemorial park and we didn't sign on to live next to something recognized to be with mazkers as a graveyazd, and obviously it is a cemetery and that is fine; but it is a certain type of cemetery and it fits in with the whole azea. Vice Chair Miller: • The CC&Rs, that is just the residential neighborhoods; the cemetery did not sign up for the CC&Rs, but it has the 1962 use permit requiring a memorial pazk with flat mukers. Talia Brinkman, speaking on behalf of Carol Liu: • Opposed to the application. • I feel the proposed vertical structures, tombstones, crucifix and other statues will change the chazacter and aesthetics of our community. Even if the structures aze fully screened from public view, and I am sure the current plan will not achieve that, it sets the precedent for future installation of vertical mazkers in azeas that aze highly visible. Furthermore the proposed screening of the crucifix and veterans' structures are inadequate; it will take yeazs before the screening trees grow to the height and breadth necessary to properly screen structures from residents' view. • It doesn't seem possible to screen the vertical mazkers. I request the cemetery's proposal to be modified be denied. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 25 June 14, 2005 Peggy Jacket, Oak Valley resident: • I request that the city deny the cemetery's use permit to allow veRical mazkers and statuary. • The existing permit was in effect when we purchased our homes in Oak Valley and we relied on the City of Cupertino to enForce it. Six yeazs later I still rely on the city to enforce the existing code. I recognize the right of the cemetery to develop its property, but only according to the city's existing permit. • Please deny the application. • If Com. Miller were to ask me if the screening of the proposed changes would be acceptable, I would say No; what we based our decision to purchase not on screened vertical mazkers. • In response to Chair Wong's question, said that she did not find any of the application acceptable. Kim James,Csnyon Oak Way, (speaking for Cara Deareosta): • The catholic cemetery is addressing the city of Cupertino under the guise of a request for permission for improvements. This is not a request for improvements. This is a request for a complete invalidation of their original and existing zoning regulation. • To characterize this as nnprovement would be identical to my next door neighbor and I wanting to make an improvement by putting up a 30 story office building on our residential property, and unfortunately the city of Cupertino seems to be taking the approach that there needs to be some compromised response. • I ask you then if you would allow my neighbor and I to put up a 15 story building on our residential property because you would feel that you could not say No to a request for a disastrous change in zoning. In the package you received from us last week, there are over 220 signatures from residents of Oak Valley and the surrounding azea; you also received in the package through the letter by individuals the details of where the cemetery has been dishonest in their dealings with the city and the Oak Valley community and has consistently spun this request to dispose of their zoning agreements and yet the group who has been completely with the city, which is Oak Valley, is the one that has been ignored. • We ask that you say No to this request in its entirety and stop the illegal construction immediately and immediately require the catholic cemetery to teaz out over 100 illegal structures that are outside the current zoning regulations Kim James, Canyon Oak Way, (speaking on her own behal~: • I do agree with Bob, our azea is not dynamic but it does not need to adapt to a few people. I would like to know from him if we have another neighborhood meeting, why we were not informed of his being willing to compromise; why he has never responded to us as to whether or not the people who are requesting these aze a majority or minority. I asked him personally at the neighborhood meeting who proposed the 32 foot crucifix and he said that he had. I would like to know where this is coming from; if he is walking in here after 14 months on the job requesting a permit to improve the cemetery because it is a business. I agree with Cara; we have our CC&Rs, they have a permit, we bought our houses knowing that this was permitted to be a flat horizontal park-like setting. We have our children coming to the pazk on a daily basis and the crucifix from Canyon Oak Way looks right at those trees. When he says they are going to put up a 28 foot crucifix with 28 foot trees, trees are triangulaz, crucifixes are not. Javier Swartz,Canyon Oak Way: • I agree with Mr. Lynberg that it is a unique cemetery and this is exactly what we looked at when we decided to buy our house. I idea of living next to a cemetery was not something Wat attracted me there, we went and looked at it and were made awaze of the constraints they had to keep it the way it is and we feel comfortable with the way it was. • It is a unique one, I am not catholic; if I was I would probably buy a contract. Cuper[ino Planning Commission Special Mtg 26 June 14, 2005 • Relative to pushing the vertical markers to the edge; you mentioned that they will be somewhat adjacent to some of the houses. I do not like it; it was not the deal when I signed when I bought my home, and it is very unfair. • As to the proposal that he will somehow hide 4,000 mazkers, I find it unbelievable. I have 20 redwood trees in my yard trying to hide the PG&E plant, and I wish they would grow that fast, but they don't and they aze tapered and it will likely be another 20 years before I stop seeing those high voltage [owers. • I request that you deny the application. Michelle Hocker, Canyon Oak Road: • Illustrated photos of the location of her home in relation to the cemetery. • Showed a photo of the view from the cemetery office. None of the proposed changes will be within the view of the office window. • The new flagpole is affixed to a platform, making it higher than the previous one, inserted in the ground. • Our home is now directly abutted against the platforms that the monuments were on Memorial Day. We can see the markers that aze 6 foot, 8 inches high, and 18 inches deep • Showed a photo of Calvary Cemetery in the South Bay, an example of what the residents do not want. • Pointed out that in the past, the cemetery has made a concerted effort to keep structures low. • Said that she has family members buried in the cemetery; she honors veterans, and her philosophical belief is that all aze created equal in birth and death and these mazkers that you see in front of you to me symbolize tht very idea; they are all the same. • Not opposed to the expansion, but requests that the cemetery preserve its pazk-like environment. It is important that Cupertino continues to preserve its open spaces and park-like environment. • Would prefer another way to honor the veterans, with lower mazkers other than the proposed markers. Katherine Aoughton, Hammond Way: • From our backyard we have a view of the existing and illegally placed veRical mazkers. • We will also have a view of at least one of the azeas slated for vertical grave markers as proposed by the cemetery. • Illustrated photos of various views from backyazds of the proposed vertical mazkers. • While all of these proposed changes are disturbing to us, what is most distressing is what could happen in the years beyond this proposal. • None of the views aze what the homeowners bargained for when their homes were purchased; they were told that the cemetery would remain quiet, serene and puk-like. We believed that the cemetery would respect its neighbors and open spaces adjacent to it by expanding in a consistent and responsible way. Instead the cemetery is now trying to turn its property into a Las Vegas style cemetery. It is no longer enough to offer a peaceful pazk-like setting that fits in with the open spaces that surround it; it is no longer good enough to be the good neighbor it has been for a number of yeazs. For some reason, the cemetery wants to make a statement to its customers and tum its property into an obvious, garish and ostentatious cemetery located in the midst of a neighborhood with over 200 existing homes. Like Las Vegas, customers will be pouring in to see the bigger and better monuments, statues and tombstones. • These proposed changes would be fine if they were in a non-residential area within Santa Claza County, but the cemetery is right in the middle of our Oak Valley neighborhood. • Making these changes would have a negative effect on all of us because Oak Valley would become a less desirable place to live if there is a conspicuous cemetery next door. By Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 27 June 14, 2005 allowing the cemetery to do as it pleases, the homeowners will beaz the brunt as our property values depreciate even in the midst of a strong and vibrant Califomia real estate mazket. As a result, I strongly urge you to not approve the use permits submitted by the cemetery. Rou Muir, Oak Canyon resident: • Illustrated photos showing the full impact of the proposal on the homeowners' properties • Our family attends church every Sunday, but we don't want a 28 foot crucifix in the playground area of the pazk. • Four 28 foot trees is not sufficient for screening. • There is a history of the cemetery not following procedures and approvals, and I commend the Planning Commission for identifying that since the beginning. • Said there was an issue with the pond and landscape issues where the crew had shut down and neglected the maintenance of the pond and property, which represents a health concern. • The planting and ponds need to be maintained as they were attractive. Jim Wheeler, Hammond Way: • One of two homes overlook the cemetery. • There were trees across the street on the Santa Claza County park property which blocked the view; however, they died and had to be removed. His view now is the 36 markers. • The Gate of Heaven Cemetery is one of most beautiful and peaceful cemeteries in the Bay Area. It is very fortunate to be located in an azea filled with huge mountain vistas next door to open space pazk and at the heart of Oak Valley's 180 homes. • At a recent community awareness meeting where the Director of Catholic Cemeteries spoke, the statement was made that the proposed changes are necessary because the cemetery is not properly serving its community. At the same meeting, he stated that the number of inground funerals held at the cemetery currently 500 per yeaz which is average for the cemeteries in this azea. Using horizontal markers under the current permit, they are successful at competing with other cemeteries in the azea. • There was another statement made in a publication that the cemetery is not well known and it needs to be improved. The cemetery has an ideal location and is well known; the number of vehicles going past the cemetery has increased dramatically over the past 10 years. • The cemetery today has more visibility than it has had in its entire history; people are always visiting Rancho San Antonio Park. • I oppose the cemetery being given the right to install vertical tombstones afrer operating successfully for over 40 years without them. I feel somewhat betrayed by the cemetery after the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Jose sold their land to a developer and then waited until all the homes in Oak Valley were sold before asking to change their operating permit. • There are several other reasons I feel betrayed. The original permit issued by Santa Clara County in 1962 was a well thought out document. By stating that the cemetery be developed as a memorial park with flat markers, it guazanteed that the cemetery would have a minimal impact on the beautiful surroundings. From 1962 to 1989 the many students who attended classes at St. Joseph's seminary did not have to look at vertical mazkers or vertical tombstones; they saw only horizontal markers with a beautiful park-like cemetery. • In 1977 when the Santa Clara County Pazks Department purchased the 130 acres of land forming the basis for Rancho San Antonio Pazk, the cemetery maintained operations to the original permit so visitors to Rancho San Antonio Park did not have to look at vertical tombstones as they hiked the trails. As a result the many articles written about the trail included high praise for the tremendous views available from the trails. In 2003 after purchasing one of the homes built in Oak Valley and after seeing a tree removed and suddenly noticing that there appeared to be a change in my viewpoint outside my house, as the freeway Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 2$ June 14, 2005 obstacles die out, you will have ongoing disputes about these 4,000 + mazkers; that is going to be something you need to be prepazed for and will happen. • In 2003 after purchasing one of the las[ homes built in Oak Valley, I talked with my neighbors and asked about the cemetery. After hearing their concems, I met with the Director of Catholic Cemeteries, Father Enrico Hernandez. When I met with him, he specifically described the future direction of the cemetery; he stated it wanted to be a good neighbor to us and would continue to expand away from the homes, more towazd the mountains. There was no discussion about vertical tombstones being used in the future. • In summary, from 1962 through 2005, we heard a consistent message from the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, which was from the beginning to be a good neighbar to all those impacted by its presence. • To the Planning Commission I ask do not let the Gate of Heaven betray that long-standing commitment to being a good neighbor to our community. • The second proposed change I want to address is the cemetery's attempt to install a veterans' plaza at an area directly behind the homes on Canyon Oak Way. I am from an army family, which has consistently made sacrifices in each generation to fend freedom by serving our country; and would state that in the space where it is currently defined in a very limited azea, directly behind people's homes where there are only 23 available plots to bury additional people in the veterans' area, is the wrong place to put a veterans' plaza. Lee Stevens, Serra Street: • We are not directly in line of sight of the cemetery's plans, but it does impact us as a neighborhood. • It will impact our property values and the way people respond to the community. We knew there was a cemetery there. Everyone has to follow the rules; and some people cannot do what they want to because of the restrictions. That should apply to the cemetery also. • The process should have been followed and hopefully from this point it will be. • I do not object to the veterans' memorial, but wish things were of a smaller scale. I am happy to see that the cemetery is willing to compromise because at the May meeting all responses were No, when asked if they were willing to take suggestions from the neighbors. • I hope there is community support and regulations will continue to be followed as they aze laid out by the city. Fred Fry, Canyou Oak Way: • Things aren't very visible from my home, but if I had known buying the home that they planned to install the vertical markers, I don't think I would have bought the home. • I am Catholic, and a veteran and dodt see the need for the changes. It had a park-like setting and I would like it to stay that way. Out of sight, out of mind is my motto. The celebrations can occur on Veterans' Day and Memorial Day, but it should go back to the peaceful setting at other times. • If a resident put up a large structure, they would have to teaz it down; but that same resident would be ostracized if they insisted the vertical mazkers, illegally placed, be removed. • I am opposed to the application. Calvin Doe, Manzanita Court: • Do not have a direct view of the cemetery, but am concemed that there will be adverse economic externalities with this proposal. • My simple thesis is supply and demand will drive property value. Shazed his purchasing experience. Before he decided to spend $2.2 million and $25,000 in annual property tax, he did a lot of homework. One of the things I asked my realtor to do spend some time to narrow Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 29 June 14, 2005 down the list of homes I should consider and came close to not considering the homes at Oak Valley because of the fact that it was next to a cemetery and a railroad. Our family did not object to living next to a cemetery because of its pazk-like setting. • I wish the cemetery would take the steps to involve the community and involve all the adverse impacts for consideratioa I don't think you have enough information today. Iman Nesh, Canyon Oak Way: • I have been listening to all these presentations and I agree with what the speakers said. • We received a letter from the cemetery stating that they were going to make some changes. They made the determination of who in the neighborhood would be affected. • You have asked people if there was any part of the proposal that would be acceptable. I did not feel the last meeting went that well, but now we are being offered the opportunity to provide our comments and there seems to be an oppoRunity for compromise when there was not at the May meeting. • I would ask that the city hold the cemetery to the agreements that were in place even though other possibilities may have been explored in other cemeteries. Keith Hocker, Canyon Oak Road: • It is cleaz that you have heazd that the original permit that the cemetery operated on was for it to be developed like a pazk. I feel it was done so because of its proximity to the open space, the neazby hills and lazge undeveloped Vacts of lands. This was a wise and just decision. • We are hoping to preserve the pazk-like setting. • Allowing vertical mazkers and statuary monuments will change the setting of the cemetery; one only has to look at Calvary Cemetery to see an extreme example of this. • It has been stated that some customers want vertical mazkers; but this is not a reason to change the permit. A cemetery with 500 burials a yeaz, approximately 1.5 per day, seems to be doing a brisk business. • No one is trying to stop the cemetery from doing a business, only stop the plans to tum the cemetery into a typical kind of cemetery. • When we first moved in, we thought it would be a nice, quiet neighbor. Unfortunately the traffic and noise has told us otherwise. The typical operations show us that it is in fact a business. However, it does not have to look like one. • To that end, over 220 people have signed a petition stating this, 160 homes which is about 60% of the homes polled. This gets my attention as these people are willing to go on record and state this. It has also been stated that we might be anti-veterans; that is not true. It is the size and scope of the monuments that look completely out of character with the surrounding azea and the cemetery itself. • We aze trying to preserve the grounds, the open space the surrounding hills. • We did see the monuments on Memorial Day; they are quite lazge and out of place including the two lazge niches which were not quite visible on any plans we received. • No disrespect intended, but this is not a veterans' issue. It is an issue to the opposition of erecting large structures and statuaries and monuments throughout a cemetery where we are hoping to maintain the park-like setting as defined by the 1962 permit. Lori Ng, a visitor to the Gate of Heaven Cemetery: • Not an Oak Canyon resident. • I learned of the proposed change from a recent newspaper article, on the 4~' anniversary of my son's death; who is buried at Gate of Heaven Cemetery. We chose the cemetery because of its park-like setting. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 30 lune 14, 2005 • We aze comforted by the multitude of people who visit the ceme[ery regulazly. The uninterrupted landscape created through the use of flat horizontal gravesite markers is largely what makes the cemetery's welcoming environment possible. Allowing vertical markers would put the environment in jeopazdy. • There are two groups in this debate that have been heard clearly; the Director of catholic cemeteries and the residents of Oak Valley. There is a third group the city of Cupertino must thoughtfully consider. These aze the many people buried at Gate of Heavy Cemetery and their families. Many, who like my son and myself, were former or are current residents of Cupertino. The fwancial interest of the Oak Valley residents and the diocese of San Jose are understandable; future propeRy values and revenue streams aze important. We should also stop to remember some investments made in the past. In choosing the Gate of Heaven, families made a substantial financial investment, more importantly their emotional investment was immense. The Director of Catholic Cemeteries, Mr. Linberg, indicates that he has had a constant flow of requests from families wanting vertical markers. These families have always been free to choose a cemetery that offers them; many people want an altemate choice. For over 40 years people have come to Gate of Heaven Memorial Pazk to make that choice. • Gate of Heaven Cemetery invited local residents to meet with them about their proposal. When the neighbors voiced their opposition to upright headstones, Mr. Linberg countered that the veRical headstones would be placed in azeas with little visual impact to neighboring residents. My concern is that Mr. Linberg has not adequately weighed visual unpact on the cemetery's regular visitors. Unlike the Oak Valley residents, we were neither notified of the proposal, nor asked for our opinion. She quoted Mc Linberg's statement in the September 2004 edition of Valley Catholic. • Will changing the current landscape at Gate of Heaven Cemetery continue to serve these families sensitively? • I urge the Planning Commissioners to visit the Gate of Heaven Cemetery if you have not already; it is truly unique. Please honor the intentions of the many people buried at the cemetery and their loved ones who visit regulazly. Let them continue to find peace in the open setting they desired. Do not allow upright mazkers. Aileen Kandel: • Opposed to application. • Husband is buried at Gate of Aeaven Cemetery. • I have more information tonight as I was not informed beforehand. I did have a concem about the veterans' area where they wanted statues moved out and also the flag bothered people. That upset me because I have friends who aze presently fighting in the war. • My husband is laid to rest in the Saint Michael Guazdian Angel Area and the status is very important. I have friends who are concerned about changes in the cemetery. The flat stones aze my preference, but I do not suppoR if they remove items that have been in the park; the • Family plots are important to many of us and we expect them to remain. The statues and monuments were in [he memorial pazk long before the homes were built. • It is not a pazk, it is a cemetery; I feel things should remain as they aze. Stephen Villegas, San Jose resident: • In favor of application. • A veteran and member of the Honor Guard • The veterans have served their country, you, their families, and have given their lives. • We would like the images of the services which they fought for to stay • We need to remember our veterans. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 31 7une 14, 2005 Alton Hicks, veteran: • In favor of application. • World Waz II Veteran, Korean War veteran and I will be buried in the Gates of Heaven cemetery; have friends who are buried in this cemetery. • I address the military mazkers to be located in the vicinity of the flagpole. • The 6 markers represent the various military services, the markers were displayed on Memorial Day and they gave honor and recognition oF the sacrifices of our military personnel to the freedom we enjoy. They aze reminders that our freedoms were not given to us on a silver platter; they came through the sacrifice of lives. • It is altogether fitting and proper that our military personnel should be honored by the markers. Paul Blefari, veterau: • A World War II combat wounded, disabled veteran; received the Purple Heart, Brown Star and other medals. • I attended the Memorial Day services at the Gate of Heaven cemetery. After the services, I went to the veterans' section and saw the veterans' markers and was very impressed. • I understand that the Director of the cemetery had applied for a use permit to install permanent markers and statuaries. • There are some residents adjacent to the cemetery who aze objecting to the mazkers because they obstruct their view. What better view than mazkers honoring our veterans who gave their lives for our country and helped give us our freedom? • These markers aze a respectable U-ibute to all veterans of all wars. That is my prunary concem. I would like to see those markers stay to respect our veterans, and ask that the permits be granted to honor our veterans. David Sanders, Commander of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post 3982, located in Santa Clara: • In favor of application. • A letter was sent in June regazding our feelings in this matter. We respectfully request that you honor the veterans by allowing the six monuments in the section by the flagpole and fmd some way to mitigate their presence from the residents who feel they aze impacting their view. • We do things to honor the deceased; we erect monuments, Arlington National Cemetery is an excellen[ example. When it comes to change of rules and regulations, we do change things; we changed Memorial Day so more people could have a three day weekend and not honor our veterans but BBQ. • I would ask that you think about change in this matter. I have been at waz and seen the horrors and seen the bond that happens when we get together and come home. We do like to play taps, fire three lollies of seven rifles, fold the flag over the casket, and we do like those raised markers symbolizing a cross, Staz of David, etc. Think of them at France and at Arlington. • I hope you can find a way to find resolution for both sides. Vice Chair Miller: • (to Mr. Sanders) Is your issue that you want the size of the monuments to be the way they aze or is it just that you want some recognition for veterans and if they were smaller in size or less obtrusive, would they be acceptable? Mr. Sanders: • I believe personally that any reduction in size is a minunization of what is meant; so leYs make our flag smaller, our cities smaller, make less rules; less is not always better. Sometimes we need to have bigger and better things and I would like to recognize all veterans including the POW/MIA whose body was never recovered and who couldn't be buried. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 32 June 14, 2005 • Those of us who have been in battle and seen death, we don't forget those things and don't minimize them. • As for "iYs only a few" because that is what I heard; one is too many. Ralph Otte, (Not preseut) • In favor of application. John Martinez, So. Stelling Road: • In favor of application. • I am a veteran; and seen many horrors of waz; these are our veterans, young and old. • When I saw the monuments I was proud of the gesture honoring the six services of the military. • My wife is buried there and I visit the cemetery two or three times a week. When I recently visited, I saw that the monuments were gone and the office informed me that they were removed because of a protest. • The people who are protesting are not patriotic, it is a shame! Chair Wong: • Explained the process; the reason for the public hearing is that the cemetery needs to come and have a use permit in order to have the veterans' memorial. They have a temporary permit from the city of Cupertino to put it there so that there was no disrespect to the veterans. Lois Murray, • In favor of application. • Retired US Army First Sergeant. • Cemetery monument seems to be offensive to many people because they say it ruins their view, and some residents are more affected than others. • I commend the cemetery officers who showed up to try and mitigate the offensive look of the monument. • How many standing minutes per day, or how many standing hours per week do you see the cemetery from your bedroom that overlooks the monuments? • The proposed mitigated changes cover much and they can add more shrubbery or trees, and they appeaz open to doing that. • Relative to the park-like settings, it seems that adding more trees and shrubs would add to a more consistent park-like setting. • Since 9-11, I was shocked when people complain about the monuments; especially removing them right after Memorial Day. Those monuments celebrate the lives given to this country so that so many of us can appear here tonight to have a difference of opinion. • I take this issue seriously and appreciate your allowing me to speak to the issue and as to the size of the monuments, as long as it is appropriate to the size of the flag that covers our freedom, I would be appreciative of that as well. Ken Girdley, Los Altos resideut: • In favor of application. • I am the Post Commander for the American Legion Post 558 and for the 40 yeus the cemetery has been in existence, we have performed Memorial Day service at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. • I would like to continue to see the monuments in place the way they were this last Memorial Day. With proper screening the two story homes behind it could be screened by trees. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 33 June 14, 2005 Looking at the monuments, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; you have [o understand the sacriFices that were made and I think we all do, especially since 9-1 l. • Pointed out that the Califomia State Law does not protect anyone's view; they aze written to protect the property owner's right to improve, not the neighbor's right to a view and that has been proven time and again in lawsuits. • The flag platform is smaller today than in the past; the flagpole is the same height as it was; the proposed height of 28 feet for the cross is the same height as those two story homes that most of the neighbors reside in. • No one is proposing a Calvary Cemetery. Today is Flag Day. We played taps on Saturday during the flag retirement ceremony, and we heard comments tonight. I thought the Las Vegas comment was counter-productive. • I would hope that the monuments will stay in place for those who have gone on to what we call post everlasting. ~ Odete De Sousa: • I am a foreign bom American and it was my choice to come to the USA and to stay and give whatever I could of my talents so that I could serve this country. • It hurts to hear that people are offended by having to look the monuments or see them from their three story homes; it is absurd! Those aze memorials to those who gave the'u lives so that I and you could be alive now; we wouldn't be if it were not for them. They are dignified, beautiful, they aze something special for a long time should have been done. The tributes to the veterans on the monuments aze very digiifying and fitting for us to say Thank you for what you did, Thank you for dying so that I may live. • I want to correct a prior speaker's comment; that now the flag is on a platform and before it was in the ground. The flag was never in the ground; the flag was always standing on a pole in concrete; the present one has a smaller mazble base. There are people who say they don't want to look at the flag every day. Guadalupe Spinner, 13`h District Commander, American Legion: • In favor of application. • I am proud to be here; proud to be an American. The flag means a lot to me and should mean to each and every one present. If there are people offended at looking at the flag, there must be somettung wrong. • I am proud that the veterans attended tonight. • The monuments are to show our gratitude to the people, men and women who have gone to post everlasting and they deserve something for giving their lives for their country, so that we can stand here today and express differences of opinion for those who say they don't want the monuments and for those who say they do. • Perhaps new mazkers should not be erected, the ones that are there should stay there; they should not be removed. They were put there before and whether or not they were put there legally or not, the point is they shoulddt be removed. • We should all be proud of this country and we should all look at the flag before anything nasty is said. Lawrence Holian, Ssnta Clara Co. resident: • Neutral on application. • Proud to be a 63 year resident of Santa Clara County. • Regarding the vertical gave mazkers, they should be available to everyone including plots already paid for and occupied by the deceased. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 34 June 14, 2005 • VeRical markers should be used as the cemetery dces not maintain the horizontal markers properly, crabgrass is a problem and will overgrow the horizontal mazkers unless family or friends of the deceased cut the grass. This should be the responsibility of the cemetery. I believe the horizontal mazkers should be turned upright to correct this problem; my mother is buried there and I am well aware of the situation. Marie Boyd, Sunnyvale resident: • In favor of application. • My husband was a disabled veteran and is buried at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. • It is a beautiful cemetery with caring people who keep it maintained. • Over Memorial Day weekend, I was pleased to see monument erected honoring all the branches of service. When i visited recently, I leamed that the monuments were removed because of objections from certain neighbors. There were also objections to the flying of the American flag. Surely the residents knew that they were purchasing property adjacent to a Catholic cemetery and bordering the veterans' section where it is only natural and traditional to fly the American flag. • I am from the era of patriotism and hope that the feeling is not being lost in our country. I have traveled extensively in Europe and there aze many reminders there and tributes of waz heroes especially in cemeteries. . I hope the Planning Commission realizes this is a fitting time to pay homage to our servicemen who are fighting and dying as we speak so we can live safely and comfortably in our homes. • These monuments would be an attractive addition, not only to the city of Cupertino, but to the entire Santa Clara Valley. Raymond Gamma, Santa Clara resident: • In favor of application. • I am a Korean W ar veteran who initially served 4 years in the naval reserves and 4 yeazs in the air force. . Prior to Memorial Day I received a phone call from an irate Cupertino resident, who advised me that a group of people living adjacent to the cemetery were demanding that six new memorial monuments in the veterans' section honoring the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, and MIA/POWs should be removed immediately. • This upset me because of the veterans who went to war, many of whom never returned to their loved ones, who fought and died for the right of these citizens to oppose what is going on today. • In 1962 I was Deputy Fire Marshal in Santa Claza County Fire Marshall's Office; our office did the fire related plan reviews and inspections for the county and the city of Cupertino. One of my assignments was the plan review of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. I also had the honor of inspecting the facility after its construction; it was ironic, when I made my inspection of the facility it was all by itself, there weredt homes adjacent to the cemetery as there are today. Who Came First?? When they did come, did they Imow the cemetery was there? Yes, the original use permit specified flat grave mazkers, but to us veterans, the six beautiful monuments honoring our military and POWs/MIAs aze not grave markers. • I am one of the original founders of Veterans' Memorial now located in Santa Claza's Central Park. When the four of us proposed it to the city of Santa Claza in March 2001, pre 9-11, the City Council gave us 100% support and granted us $80,000 seed money to start the project. Sad but true, we didn't need the money, our committee raised money through fund raisers and we did not receive one dissent, or comment against the project. • The cemetery did receive a temporary permit for the installation of the six monuments honoring our military and POWs. To me the residents demanding that they remove these, Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 35 June 14, 2005 should be ashamed. Also, demanding that they be removed immediately after Me.morial Day is an outrage. • What would be more fitting than to have the monuments installed at this location? I urge you to recommend to the City Council that the monuments be returned to the veterans section of the cemetery to honor our veterans 365 days of the yeaz, not just on Memorial Day. Jim Lohse: . In favor of application. • I have been visiting the cemetery since I was 3 yeazs old, my father was past commander of the Los Altos American Legion Post, and I went to the cemetery every year to place a flag for Memorial Day. • I am surprised to hear people talking about a park-like setting as if it was really a pazk; the reason we refer to it as pazk-like is because it is not a park, there aze deceased people buried there. It is under a conditional use permit and is a different use; it is not a park. . I urge approval of a variance for the most contentious issue which is the upright markers. Perhaps once the variance is issued and that issue is settled, the rest of the issues could be revisited with cooler heads. • The idea that this is open space; there is a railroad track and PG&E substation there; Kaiser Permanente is on the site; the backside of the beautiful hill is being tom by Kaiser and no one is complaining about using their mountain; they aze worried about a little mazker, but the whole mountain is being tom down on the backside. • If people aze under covenants in that neighborhood, that is their problem. If the realtor told them something that wasn't true, that is the way realtors aze; they are not held accountable. • The catholic religion build things big, that is a religious expcession; I would hope that people don't see it as purely an architectural review as to whether something is flat or maybe reaching towazd God a little. I hope they see it as a religious expression also. • In 1962, LSD was legal; should we go back to that?? I don't think what the permit said in 1962 is relevant; you need to take a fresh look at it today and make a decision. • I urge you to provide a variance on the most contentious issue so that you can move forward on the remaining issues. Meghan Denzel, Oak Valley resident: • In favor of application. • We enjoy all the things that the Catholic community has provided for the area as well and enjoy the open spaces. • I understand my neighbors have some concerns; I don't have direct view of the cemetery, but I am a spiritual person and work in hospice. When I heard that residents were complaining about issues, we met with Mr. Linberg and i found hun to be a very reasonable person willing to talk and make concessions to appease neighbors. • My grandfather is buried in the cemetery and my children walk our dog through the area because dogs are not permitted in Rancho San Antonio. They also visit their grandfather's grave and have no fear of cemeteries. • Cemeteries aze about honoring the lives of the deceased and it is also about those of us who aze living, and how they deal with the loss of a loved one. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Chair Wong: • Summazized that the purpose of the hearing was to listen to the application, the veterans' memorial is just one portion of the application. My father is a World Waz II veteran, and I Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 36 June 14, 2005 applaud the veterans who are present; currently the US is at war, we have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and when people make statements that we don't appreciate the American flag, I think that is getting on the edge, it doesn't matter where you live; we are all Americans and we all support our troops and our flag; we just need to find a way to deal with the issues before us. • It seems like the people in favor aze mainly concerned with the veterans' memorial and we will address that; this is an informational meeting. • We received a lot of input, there were 32 speakers. Ms. Wordell: • Summacized the issues of focus. o The low profile chazacter of the cemetery - could the changes be reasonably hidden from view; o Does the proposal on landscape screening unreasonably obstruct views and we just request that our focus on these aspects of the proposal. • Said that the additional time would provide time for the applicant to meet with the neighbors to discuss issues and try to reach a resolution. Mr. Piasecki: • It is unportant is provide whatever direction you feel is appropriate that will help you reach a decision in August. It would help if they sought additional concessions and modifications or reductions, whatever they can do to reach resolution. You may come back in August and you may not have agreement but hopefully have less disagreement and that you have at least consolidated the issues down to hopefully 3 or 4 and you can then make a decision. • This is a fmal decision of the Planning Commission unless it gets appealed within 14 days of your decision. This is not the last opportunity for the people present, they will have an opportunity to address the Planning Commission in August. Com. SaadaH: • I have not made a decision on my vote on the application; I intend to visit the azea more. • I urge the applicant to meet with the neighbors and have a dialog and work it out to see if you can come up with some agreement when you retum. Look at the options more closely. There is a way to get this resolved where everyone can be happy. Com. Giefer: • We heazd a bt of feedback relative to the veterans' memorial; I would like to find a way for the neighbors and the cemetery to work out how that can be made feasible; one suggestion is for it to be at a lower elevation than grave level; it might be a simplistic way to preserve the markers and create a memorial that is similar to Vietnam Veterans' Memorial and the World War II veterans. • I think both goals can be achieved; any time there is a business, and the business was there first, and it is abutted by new home construction, there is always going to be some point of conflict and you have to work together, not give up, and keep trying to work it out and I am sure you will come up with a solution for everyone. We have heazd a lot of opposition to the upright headstones, several of the clients of the cemetery say they don't like that. • I know that in the veterans cemeteries, they have gone from upright to flat markers because it is easier maintenance and upkeep for them. I think that the residents have a valid point, that it has been this way for 40 years and it doesn't appear from what we have heard this evening, to make them less competitive with surrounding cemeteries. • Everyone needs to work together, remain involved and resolve this to please all paRies with the final resolution. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 37 June 14, 2005 • I would like staff to work with the applicant, answer their questions, and when we see this again in August I would like to see an alternative that retains the veterans' memorials in a pleasing fashion that the neighborhood supports specifically. Com. Chen: • Expressed appreciation for all present and being respectful to each other. • We have heazd both sides of view and I would also encourage the applicant and residents to work together so that by the August meeting, there will be a solution that addresses all the issues and it be a resolution we can all live with and all agree upon. Vice Chair Miller: • I also appreciate the fact that we were all respectful to one another tonight, which is very important. • I think it is unfortunate that there is so much polarization over this issue and that somehow things got off on the wrong foot as opposed to a more compromising atmosphere. I did heaz a number of gestures towazds compromise and a willingness to continue to dialog on the part of the cemetery and the neighbors, and as my colleagues have said, I think the best solution is the one you can work out for yourselves. • If you come back here and are undecided, we will impose a solution; but I guarantee that it would be better and you would be happier if you worked it out amongst yourselves. • I encourage you to meet and I would like staff to invite the Planning Commission to attend that meeting as well. Chair Wong: • Suggested assigning a representative from the Planning Commission to attend the meeting. Chair Wong: • The public hearing has been closed; you can contact the Planning Commission through the email or through writing to us or contacting staff and there is another public heazing. • Thank you to all the residents, the veterans and others who do not live in Cupertino but have family members at the cemetery for coming tonight; and also for being respectful. • Relative to comments made, Mr. Wheeler said that it was a beautiful cemetery, lots of open space. Mrs. Stevens said that it was a good way for the neighbors to come together. This is a sensitive issue; I like what Com. Giefer said regarding the veterans' memoriaL On a recent trip back from San Francisco, my family stopped at the cemetery and my wife was not awaze we were in the cemetery until I told her; she was amazed at such a beautiful, serene and peaceful azea. We did see the markers to honor the six armed forces as well as the POWs. • I think that Com., Giefer is correct in suggesting that they could come together with the neighborhood and have those markers below grade level to preserve them as they have already been ordered. I reiterate that it was a temporary permit they got, we wanted to accommodate the cemetery to honor our veterans on Memorial Day and they had to be removed until we had a public hearing. It seems bureaucratic but we aze trying to facilitate this as soon as possible. • I indulge you for your patience so that we can resolve this issue, so that if you can work a little harder and find a good location in the cemetery, I believe the cemetery is 56 acres and we do want to keep it close to the veterans azea as possible; I am sure we can find something to resolve it. You dodt really want us to resolve it; we would like both sides to resolve it themselves. • The veterans memorial is not the only issue of the application; it is also to discuss the upright mazkers, and I thicik that the applicant needs to get more feedback, not only from the neighbors, but also from the customers it serves. I only heard one or two customers, and I Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 38 Tune 14, 2005 think there needs to be more ou[reach towazd the customers; you might find out that more than 50% of the customers want to have flat markers. That is a business decision of the cemetery; the residents in Oak Valley knowingly purchased their homes azound the cemetery. • Bringing the crucifix down to 28 feet is a good compromise. Community meetings are needed for feedback.. • I hope that from now until August 23, we can come to a good resolution, similaz to the California Water Company, that they had concems with the Regnart Road neighborhood and in the second meeting they came and said kudos to the cemetery. I hope that the Oak Valley residents can have positive things to say to Mr. Lindberg when he returns. MoHon: MoNon by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Miller, to continue Application U-2005-04 to the August 23, 2005 Planniug Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Wong declazed a recess. OLD BUSINESS: 4. Work Program Ms. Wordell: • Briefly reviewed the work program. • Noted that the Planning Department would be fully staffed soon and projects for the next yeaz could be prioritized and scheduled. She asked for Planning Commission input. Chair Wong: • Stated that the fence ordinance and sign ordinance were in line for review. • Staff suggested the second meeting in August to get direction on the fence ordinance. • Suggested the first meeting in August to provide some direction to the new planner. • Contact the Chamber of Commerce for feedback on the sign ordinance, as instructed by the City Council. Mr. Pissecki: • Said the staff would make every reasonable effort to cover everything, but were down to 50% of staff at one time for about 1-1/2 months. • Provided a staffing update. 5. ReconsideraHon of Cancellation of August 9, 2005 Planning Commission meeHng. A discussion ensued regarding potential cancellation of the August 9~' meeting to coincide with the City Council meeting. Further discussion will take place at the June 15~' meeting. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. SaadaN, to cancel the first Planning Commission meetiug in July. (Vote: 5-0-0) NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: No meeting due to lack of business. Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 39 June 14, 2005 HOUSING COMMISSION: No report. Com. Saadati noted that he was unable to attend the June IS meeting, regarding the reallocation of funding for the non-profit organization. MAYOR'S MONTHLY MEETING WITH COMMISSIONERS: V ice Chair Miller reported on the following: • Discussion included the Planning Commission effoRS to condude the General Plan. • There will be a Commissioners recognition dinner on July 21 at 5 p.m. • Reviewed the decision on the Blue Pheasant, the application was voted down 5:0. • The upcoming budget hearings, the city's finances are bleak, but that by selling some properties this year, they were going to be able to fill the budget deficit for the next two yeazs; and for the Council to become strategic in planning; how they were going to balance the budget. • There is a library hosted craft program; several programs for children at the library. • Battle of the Bands - Teen Commission event. • Summer reading club for 43 children. • The Fine Arts Commission is low on funds, they were working with Menlo Equities who had hired an artist to do some artistic sign work at Wolfe/Stevens Creek. • The Mazy Ave. bridge project was discussed at the meeting. • Chair Wong said that the next tea with the Mayor was Wednesday, August 3; Com. Saadati to attend. Last one is Oct. 5- Com. Chen will attend. TELECOMMUICATIONS COMMISSION: • Vice Chair Miller repoRed that hearings were held on how to make effective use of voiceover IP and of using more sophisticated technology available in the community. They are also working on the ability to have the audience at home watching TV to speak and ask questions. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: Quarterly meetings - has not met. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: • Mc Piasecki presented an update on the position vacancies in the Planning Department, and repoRed on the promotions and retirements. The Planning Commissioners and staff acknowledged Nancy Czocek who recently retired from the Planning Department and acknowledged Kiersa Witt's promotion to replace Mrs. Czocek. • Noted there were articles on CEQA review and property tax reductions for some commercial buildings. • Vice Chair Miller expressed appreciation and congratulations to Mr. Piasecki and Ms. Wordell for their hazd work on the General Plan marathon meetings. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the special meeting on June 15, 2005 at 6 p.m. o ~ SUBMITTED BY: Elizabeth A. +Ili , Recording Secretary Approved as amended: August 23, 2005