PC 08-23-05
Cupertino Planning Commission
August 23, 2005
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:00 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
August 23, 2005
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
TUESDAY
The Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 2005 was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chairperson Gilbert Wong.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLLCALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Gilbert Wong
Marty Miller
Lisa Giefer
Angela Chen
Taaghi Saadati
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Colin lung
Aki Honda
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the June 14, 2005 special Planning Commission meeting:
Com. Giefer requested the following change:
Page 1:
Change "Commissioner Lisa Giefer - absent" to read: "Com. Giefer
arrived after roll call."
Com. Saadati requested the following change:
Page 7: First bullet, delete the first "of 551"
Third bullet, second line: delete "and" and insert ''we can"
Fourth bullet, second line: delete "that"
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve the
June 14, 2005 minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Minutes of the June 15, 2005 special Planning Commission meeting:
Com. Giefer requested the following change:
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
August 23, 2005
Page 8, Com. Saadati, second line, delete "shoreline" and insert "sewer line"
Page 30, Com. Giefer, second line, delete "recruitments" and replace with "improvements"
Page 39, "Ghair" should read "Chair"
Com. Saadati requested the following changes:
Page 8, Com. Saadati, third bullet, line 3: Change "Com. Giefer's issues raised" to read
"issues raised by Com. Giefer".
Page 8, second last line of bullet, delete "that"
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve the June
15,2005 minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Chen abstain)
Minutes of the June 23, 2005 special Planning Commission meeting:
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chen, to approve the June 23, 2005
minutes as presented. (Vote: 4-0-1; Com. Giefer abstain)
Minutes of the June 28, 2005 regular Planning Commission meeting:
Com. Saadati requested the following changes:
Page 37, Com. Saadati, First Bullet, second line, change "the" to "a"
Page 37, Fifth bullet, line one, delete "Two options are to continue it until we get more data,
other" and replace with "One option is to continue it until we get more data,
another"
Com. Giefer requested the following changes:
Page 10, Second bullet, change "sensitivity" to read "sensitive"
Page 17, First Bullet, change "read" to "meet"
Page 39, point of clarification, Chairman Wong: regarding the height limitations for the
Taylor Woodrow housing; it was with regard to the height of the three story elements,
and I believe you stated that you only wanted it to be two stories, not mainly two story
elements? "Mainly" should be deleted and it should read: "only two stories"
Page 39 - 7'h bullet, change "Gierfer" to read "Giefer"
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve the
June 28, 2005 minntes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Chairperson Wong noted receipt of a number of communications regarding the Taylor
Woodrow application and the Gate of Heaven application, and an e-mail from Mr.
William Yee opposing the vertical markers on the Gate of Heaven application.
Cupertino Planning Connnission
3
August 23, 2005
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
1.
U-2005-01, Z-2005-01,
ASA-2005-02, TM-2005-01,
EA-2005-01, Alan
Loving (Taylor
Woodrow Homes) Bubb
Road & Imperial Ave.
2.
M-2005-03, Terry
Brown (Saeed F. Ghazvini)
10075 Pasadena Ave.
3.
U-2005-11, ASA-2005-07
Thomas Harrington
22350-82 Homestead Rd.
Use permit to demolish 175,000 square feet of
industrial buildings and construct 94 single-family
residential units and recreation areas. Rezoning of a
12-acre site from Planned Industrial-P(ML)
to Planned Residential P(Residential). Architectural
and Site Approval for 94 single-family residential
units and recreational areas. Tentative Map to
subdivide a IZ-acre site into 94 lots + I lot held in
common. Continuedfrom July 26,2005 Planning
Commission meeting. Request removal from
calendar.
Use Permit Modification (1O-U-88) to convert the
second floor of a commerciaVoffice building to two
residential units, expand the second floor by 850
square feet and create covered parking. Planning
Commission decision final unless appealed. Request
postponement to the September 13. 2005 meeting.
Use Permit to add 1.774 square feet to an existing
7,345 square feet shopping center (Homestead
Shopping Center near Foothill Expressway).
Architectural and Site Approval for an addition to
and renovation of, an existing shopping center.
Planning Commission decision final unless
appealed. Request postponement to the September
13, 2005 meeting.
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Giefer, to remove Item 1
from the calendar and postpone Items 2 and 3 to the September 13,
2005 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
ORAL COMMUNICATION:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
PUBLIC HEARING
4.
U-2005-04
Robert Linberg (Gate
Of Heaven Cemetery)
22555 Cristo Rey Drive
None
None
Use Permit to allow vertical markers and statuary at an
existing cemetery. Planning Commission decision
final unless appealed. Continued from June 14, 2005
Planning Commission meeting.
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report:
. She explained the reason it is coming to the Planning Commission is that the County of Santa
Clara had a Use Permit for the cemetery; the cemetery lands were subsequently annexed to
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
August 23, 2005
Cupertino. A condition of the county approval was that there only be horizontal markers.
When the cemetery expressed interest in having upright markers, it triggered a Use Permit in
order for the Planning Commission to consider it. At the June 14, 2005 introductory meeting,
many discussion issues were brought up at that time; because of that the Planning Commission
requested that the applicant and other interested people meet during the interim and see if
some of the concerns and issues could be addressed. The neighbors, cemetery staff, veterans
and Mid Peninsula Open Space District and others met and they are present tonight with many
of those issues resolved.
. An updated video presentation was shown to illustrate the things that the people who have met
during the interim have addressed during that time.
o Veterans section: (markers and niche feature): 6 markers and 2 niche features were
installed temporarily for Memorial Day and have been removed. The markers are now
proposed to be 39 feet !Tom the property line of adjacent residences and the niche features
will be located near the road covered by a trellis.
o Upright marker area: The proposed upright marker area is in southeast area of the
cemetery; the upright marker area closest to the residences was eliminated and relocated
south of the area shown; the new proposal is for a terraced series of flagstone walls with
the markers placed against the walls. There is a small berm with oleander along the curb
area; the upright marker areas are not visible !Tom residential properties and open space
lands, but additional screen is recommended as a condition of approval to soften the
perimeter of the area.
o The new niche feature is proposed in the middle of a flat marker area in the south central
section of the cemetery; no issues have been raised about this feature and no changes are
proposed.
o The proposed upright marker area would be located at the southwest edge of the cemetery
property. Another upright marker area north of it was eliminated to reduce visual impacts.
The area is not visible to residential or open space areas. Similar to the other upright area,
additional landscaping is proposed.
o Pieta Statue: a 6 foot high bronze statue of the Pieta is proposed south of the lake at a road
intersection. It would not be visible !Tom residences and no changes are proposed.
o The crucifix proposed south of the office building is part of the new Bishops Plaza and has
been relocated to south of the pond. The height has been reduced to 28 feet; evergreen
trees are proposed to reduce the visual impacts. From the view looking east, in place of the
crucifix, two statues of saints, 8 and 12 feet tall respectively, are proposed.
o View from existing upright markers: The last site is the existing upright marker southwest
of the lake. The 30 upright markers were constructed in violation of the Santa Clara
County use permit condition requiring flat markers. Landscape screening is proposed to
eliminate the visual impacts.
Ms. Wordell:
· Referring to the matrix proposal for areas 1,2,4 and 6 (Exhibit B), she reviewed the proposed
mitigations and impacts of the proposed changes for the veterans' markers, existing upright
markers, niche feature, Pieta statue, and Crucifix.
· Staff recommends approval of the application.
· She answered commissioners' questions relative to the application.
Robert Lindberg, Gate of Heaven Cemetery:
· Acknowledged the advice of the Planning Commission from the prior meeting to meet with
the neighbors, work diligently to come up with solutions so that the Planning Commission
would not have to make the decisions for them. He thanked Jim Wheeler and Mark Edwards
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
August 23, 2005
for their tireless effort in moving the project along and for their honesty and integrity in
dealing with the issues. He also thanked Ms. Wordell for her cooperation and hard work.
· Said they met extensively for three meetings and hammered out the proposal as put forth
today, with many compromises both ways.
· Answered commissioners' questions.
Bruce Hill, landscape architect:
· Explained that the trees behind the memorial are arbutus morena, a slow growing California
native tree that does not require extensive pruning; is evergreen and was purchased at a size to
provide instant buffer between the adjacent neighbors and the veteran's plaza. The tree is
planned to be pruned not at 7 feet but at 7 feet above the existing chain link fence. It is also
planted downslope about 3 feet so the resulting tree that would be planted immediately would
be at about the same height as the chain link fence giving the area some impact and character
immediately. The use of shrubs would not provide any impact for the site for many years.
Mr. Lindberg:
· Reviewed the proposed modifications to the site plan and application as outlined in the August
15th letter to the Planning Department. As a result of three meetings, consensus was reached
on the following items: Veterans' Plaza, the Crucifix, Bishop's Plot, existing upright markers,
the Saint Gregory/Santa Nino Niche, corporation yard, and upright markers.
· He noted that the Mid Peninsula Open Space District was still opposed to the proposed
modifications to the cemetery.
· Answered commissioners' questions relative to the proposed modifications.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Jim Wheeler, representing Oak Valley Community Awareness group:
· 22 meetings throughout the summer were held with various groups resulting in a consolidated
list of issues to work on resolution of issues.
· 7 of 8 outstanding issues were resolved with the Gate of Heaven management team over a
three week period of time.
· The first issue is one which got a lot of attention at our last meeting; we not only reached a
resolution but sat down together with staff in August to explain what our grievances were and
in the case ofthe locating the veteran's memorial closer to the flagpole, we met one of the key
criteria that the veterans groups were looking for and we were able to look at the area between
the cemetery and the homes and decide on what an appropriate buffer zone would be. This is
the default buffer zone that was there before we started this process, so we haven't gone in and
moved the cemetery back, as much as we defined what the oleanders were like and what the
relationship was between us and the cemetery in terms of that buffer zone. The landscaping
that goes in there whether it is trees or shrubbery, as long as it is not more than 12 feet tall, the
residents would be happy in terms of being able to preserve the views of the mountains.
· We had overwhelming support for the memorials at our last gathering and I think there is even
more support that has been coming in since then including the lists of petitions that were
submitted by the veterans group as part of this review.
· I would like to add to that in my particular situation as son of WWI! veteran and a veteran
myself and the father of a current veteran, I would like to say that this is one of the nicest
things that has happened in the city of Cupertino. To have the most significant veterans'
memorial show up very near my home is a great honor and I am looking forward to seeing that
installed as soon as possible.
· The other members of our community feel the same way.
Cupertino Planning Connnission
6
August 23, 2005
· If it is possible that this memorial can be moved on this week or next week, you would find
community people overwhelmed with support for you as a Planning Commission. If it takes
some extra effort in order to put together a temporary permit in order to move forward with
that, I encourage that to happen. It is one of the ways in which we could show that the
relationship that we developed between the cemetery, local community, and the Planning
Commission is completely resolved to this point on the veterans' memorials.
· The last open issue in terms of working out the differences on the proposal is the sloped
terraces. When we first sat down to talk about the various items with the cemetery we were
given some feedback on our proposals. One of the proposals was to take a recommendation
from Com. Giefer to go forward with some way of putting in an amphitheater to lower the
height of the monuments, but putting in an amphitheater type of environment, we are putting
them away !Tom the fence and lowering them down in that amphitheater. We reviewed that
and came to the conclusion that because of safety, handicapped access and drainage that it was
a much more difficult proposition than any of us understood.
· As we move forward with some more work with the cemetery we realized that even the Queen
of Peace niche feature which is the standard of excellence inside the cemetery, is a nice private
area that actually is below grade, has nice terraces and landscaping around it and it represents
the best of what they have in terms of niche features at Gate of Heaven. We all agreed that it
was the ideal circumstance in terms of niche features. However, as we talked about doing the
same thing on the new niche features that would be installed, we came to the conclusion that
there were issues with safety, handicapped access and drainage in that configuration. It made it
much more difficult to implement that. As we moved forward and looked at the vertical
gravestones with retaining walls, we looked at the overall picture as being the same in terms of
having vertical gravestones; so !Tom a community standpoint we were still opposed to it, but
we considered and looked at it and most recently when we talked with some people preparing
for our presentation this evening, we realized that one of things we didn't ask is whether or not
someone had looked at all the aspects of safety, handicap access and drainage.
· In looking at the three different versions or proposals presented we feel that they are all equal
to vertical gravestones and have a negative impact on the community and change the open
environment of the cemetery from a memorial park to a graveyard. The back to back method,
the method with retaining walls on flat terraced areas and vertical gravestones with retaining
walls on sloped terrace areas, are basically the same. Even adding sidewalks as an additional
safety feature, would have a negative impact along with the vertical gravestones and the
flagstone retaining walls.
Mark Edwards, Peralta Ct.:
· We appreciate the cemetery's efforts to modify their proposal, but the core of the issue is, we
as a community do not believe that even the modified approach is in keeping with the
character of the area. As a result, we do not want to see the beautiful memorial park be
converted to a graveyard. We think it is a negative impact.
· Com. Giefer asked the question before about where you would go in the future with verticals
and Mr. Lindberg mentioned that he would go in towards this area in the center. If this gets
approved, it is not the end of it; these will be expanded over time and we think it is a negative.
· I would like to ask you to think about this in the context of, you have an existing cemetery
which is horizontal markers in a memorial park; would you approve a new cemetery next to
that which has vertical gravestones; I don't think so. This is the first we heard about smaller
number of gravestones, but the same impact is a result.
· We request that you stay true to the legacy and vision of the open space environment we have
in the area and retain the current obligation under the '62 use permit for horizontal markers.
Don't convert the most beautiful cemetery in the area to a graveyard.
Cupertino Planning Connnission
7
August 23, 2005
· We ask you approve the application but without vertical markers.
David Doyle, former Planning Commissioner:
· Friends who are residents of the surrounding parcel, asked him to speak on some of the
approvals he was a part of and involved in the past.
· The cemetery was established with the horizontal markers; has gone through many reviews
with horizontal markers and should remain with horizontal markers.
· Said he felt that over time good changes come in and get approved; bad changes get denied,
but come back again.
Jonas Rodenberry, Planner with Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District:
· The Open Space District is opposed to the use of upright markers as we believe this will be a
fundamental change to the existing open space character of the land and is at odds with the
original county use permit.
· We do appreciate the fact that the locations proposed by Gate of Heaven are not visible !Tom
the surrounding open space land. We worry that the approval of this plan will set a precedent
that makes it easier to develop other areas of the cemetery with upright markers. This includes
land directly bordering and clearly visible !Tom open space lands.
Michelle Hocker, Canyon Oak Way:
· Her residence is located directly behind the veterans' section.
· Relative to the veterans' section, said she honored her uncle who is buried there and served in
WWII and the Korean War; as well as her cousin, a Vietnam veteran buried there.
· Did a comparison shot of what the Gate of Heaven cemetery looks like now and the proposed
grave sites. It is a vertical gravestone; now they have proposed putting walls behind it, but it is
still a vertical gravestone.
· Pointed out that recently on the news it showed a way to put videos inside gravestones which
made me even think it was a scarier proposition than I had thought in the first place; imagine
an entire hillside with gravestones with videos in them.
· Said in the illustrations, you could see the natural slope of the land and the right hand side
looks very manufactured; a lot of digging, a lot of pouring and a lot of cement.
Ron You:
· This is not a "not in my backyard" debate; four years ago the Planning Commission put great
thought and had specific intent in establishing the 1962 permits to protect and retain the beauty
of the environment. Overturning such laws requires much more research and impact
assessments and involvement of the community at large. There is no need to rush this very
important decision.
· There is insufficient justification; the basis of approving the vertical headstone markers should
require point by point justifications according to those 1962 permit principles. That hasn't
been done.
· There is insufficient market research; existing customers should be notified; residents of Santa
Clara Valley should be notified. Everyone should have the opportunity to weigh in as this
affects everyone in Santa Clara Valley.
· There is insufficient approval by the residents. The 1962 permit fIat markers and the park-like
setting was a significant marketing strategy in selling strategy of the O'Brien Group who sold
the homes. We all made very important buying decisions on this basis and it is not appropriate
to change those rules now.
Cupertino Planning Connnission
8
August 23, 2005
· My recommendation is to develop an impact study according to the environment; structural
integrity given the nature and the composition of the soil, will retaining walls actually be able
to sit on the hillsides safely?
· We should do safety and aesthetics assessments as well, and once again include existing
cemetery clients and the extended community so we can ensure a complete and comprehensive
study has been performed. The risk of not doing so would be tragic for the Santa Clara Valley.
Once the 1500 markers and thousands of tons of cement, concrete and flagstone is erected, it
will be impossible and permanently to remove and permanently irrevocable.
Lee Stevens, Serra Street:
· Thank you for letting us provide our opinion on this matter. It is nice to know that everyone
came together as a group and made compromises and mitigating factors were considered. All
the stakeholders were able to give their opinion as to what they think should happen in this
matter.
· One of the things I want you to do is to as you are considering this matter, is to mentally take a
trip up 280; one of the things very striking is as you go through Crystal Springs, it is a
beautiful rolling hillside, everything is undeveloped, and yet when you start getting into Colma
you start having lots of manufactured hillsides, with lots of gravestones; that is not going to
be an issue here but you also see lots of homes that are close to the freeway and you lose that
character of the natural landscape; that feeling of look here is nature, we live in a beautiful
area. To me it is an issue of not wanting to change the natural grade of what is already there in
terms of the natural slope.
· This should be approved only as far as the 7 concessions we made, and then on the 8th in terms
of the vertical markers, I am against the idea of changing the landscape of the land and putting
in those vertical markers and terraces.
Calvin Doe, Manzanita Court:
· Said the last time he spoke, he felt he did a disservice to his fellow Oak Valley residents. He
spoke about the adverse economic impact with changing the character of the cemetery from a
parklike memorial park to a graveyard. Inevitably when you speak about money, people think
you are greedy. This issue is not about money; it is about fairness.
· How do I explain to my family that helped me in this buying decision, and locating my family
to this area, that we picked this area because it wasn't a graveyard site like some of the others
we have seen, but a peaceful memorial park.
· A !Tiend of mine whose parents are both buried in the cemetery is opposed to the proposed
change. He selected the cemetery because of its serenity and park-like memorial grounds.
· The premise of my point is that the folks who bought into the cemetery, bought into the
community, bought into the fact that it is a beautiful park-like memorial and we are changing
that and as indicated, I don't think we have done enough research.
· I hope the Planning Commission will make the right choice and allow the community to be
able to provide input to make a better decision.
A. Schwartz, resident:
· Thanked his neighbors for spending the time to negotiate with Mr. Lindberg; said it seems to
be closer to a solution but the eighth issue of the vertical markers is still unresolved and is the
crux of the matter.
· I disagree with my neighbor; it is about money. Mr. Lindberg started this whole thing because
he can get more money for the plots with vertical markers. You have on the one hand, the
cemetery trying to make more money and on the other hand the neighbors who moved into
Cupertino Planning Connnission
9
August 23, 2005
that neighborhood knowing that they had a beautiful park next door and now this is changing;
we are trying to preserve the beauty of the place; he is trying to make more money.
· It is the Planning Commission's job not to ask us to find a compromise and approve
everything that is there, but rather apply the consideration of protecting the environment,
protecting the beauty and looking at the fairness of the situation. We had a pre-existing
condition; all the neighbors who moved in knew about that; and changing it is unfair. I ask
you to not approve that.
Hari Sankar, Madrone Ct.:
.. The residents of Oak Valley have shown that they are reasonable, flexible and willing to work
with Mr. Lindberg and others to get to reasonable compromises on the issues. We have been
able to resolve 7 of the 8 issues.
· It is important to all the stakeholders that we preserve the park-like setting of this beautiful
area. We all have a vested interest in preserving the park-like setting of the area.
· No matter how you look at it, the vertical markers will have a fundamental impact on the
visual landscape of the area.
· On the face of it, the retaining walls and the landscaping seem to get the job done, but you
have to look at it at a different level of detail. You are looking at 1500+ vertical gravestones
laid out in 15 or so large terraced areas with retaining walls. Some of the speakers mentioned
that over time for safety purposes we will end up putting in walkways, more concrete, and this
will not stop there. Ten years from now, we will have another hearing asking for an extension
to add more vertical markers.
· My issue is fundamentally, vertical markers will have an impact on the visual landscape of the
area. That is the reason we are opposed to it and believe that the Open Space District and
visitors to Rancho San Antonio are against it.
· My request is that the Planning Commission carefully consider this issue and show the kind of
wisdom and foresight that was shown by the county 40+ years ago when they recommended
that the park-like setting of the area be preserved. Approve the application, but reject the
proposal for vertical gravestones.
Lori Ng, visitor to the Gate of Heaven Cemetery:
· Has a son buried in Gate of Heavy Cemetery.
· I have heard much discussion tonight on concealing markers from the views of neighbors and
the open space. What about the view !Tom each of the thousands of existing gravesites? Each
was purchased with the understanding that only flat markers were allowed; the flat markers
enable a relaxed park-like feeling that I have valued and suspect that most of the other visitors
do as well.
· The cemetery is proposing a drastic change to its overall character, yet the investment made by
previous contract purchasers has been largely overlooked. After hearing the proposal for
terracing, I have some additional questions.
· The terracing method seems significantly more expensive to install and to maintain. Will
enough of the customers requesting vertical markers be willing to pay for that increased cost in
order to justify their installation or will the cost be offset by the cemetery's overall operating
budget. I recall at our last meeting, Mr. Lindberg specifically noted how expensive it was to
maintain the pond; would the overall condition of the cemetery suffer in order to accommodate
vertical markers?
· Four years ago, I thought I would be bringing my baby boy home to the nursery I had
prepared; instead I was asked to find a final resting place for him. Already distraught, I feared
that rows of tombstones would be much more than I could bear; I am so thankful for Gate of
Heaven Memorial Park; I found there a beautiful open environment that enveloped me with
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
August 23, 2005
serenity. It is a place where my two year old feels comfortable and a place that continues to
bring me peace today.
· There are many cemeteries that allow vertical markers. What has made Gate of Heaven so
special is that it does not. By requiring flat markers, Gate of Heaven created a better way to
bring the deceased, their families and the surrounding community together. Let's maintain
that harmony and require that flat markers continue to be used. For over 40 years, people have
invested in Gate of Heaven's alternative to vertical gravestones; protect their investment. Do
not allow the current landscape at Gate of Heaven to be drastically altered by the addition of
vertical markers; do not destruct this unique opportunity for tomorrow's grieving mother to
find peace.
John Martinez, So. Stelling Road:
· Suggested looking up the word "park" and "cemetery" to see the difference. Also they talk
about the view. I live on So. Stelling Road, across the street was a prune orchard; in the winter
the trees would lose their leaves and I could see all the lights in the valley. They built homes
across the street; we didn't protest. Also, before Highway 85 was built, So. Stelling was like
Highway 9; the faculty and students of DeAnza were backed up from McClellan to Rainbow,
it was difficult for us to get out of our driveways to go to work. We didn't protest. When I
visit my wife's resting place at Gate of Heaven, I used to look out and see the range at Mount
Hamilton during the winter covered with snow; beautiful view. They built homes now and I
cannot see it. Where is my view? I didn't protest.
· I see the protest as an anthill made into a mountain. To me it is ridiculous what is going on
here to make such a great tragedy of this. The veterans markers, I wish they would be
replaced tomorrow and I wish that the Gate of Heaven is well planned is well maintained, and
if they would take a walk through there they would see what a beautiful cemetery it is, and
they have a right to expand; all cemeteries have.
· Their street is a dead end street with no traffic through there. The Catholic church gave acres
of land for open space, they have a beautiful setting; they have a large gorgeous place; nobody
is bothering them. Why have they come up and started to create this problem when they know
the cemetery was there and they are doing a beautiful job. Jim did a good job in his
orientation, and so did Bob.
Aileen Kandel:
· Pleased to find out the recommendations for the veterans' monuments and also the crucifix
and statues will be placed.
· It is a cemetery not a park; there were many disclosures before people purchased homes there.
Ken Girdley, Post Commander for American Legion Post 558:
· Represents over 200 wartime veterans.
· Commended Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Lindberg for the outstanding job they have
done to preserve the monuments that are reinstalled in the veterans' section.
· Commented on the upright markers. Said he believed the cemetery has done an outstanding
job on mitigating a lot of the complaints !Tom the neighbors about the uprights.
· I believe property owners' rights come into play quite strongly this evening, and as you know
property owners have a right to improve.
· I live in Los Altos; I cannot see the uprights. If I understand the drawings correctly, once the
terraced uprights are in place, none of the contiguous neighbors will be able to see those
uprights either.
· I support the terraced uprights as proposed and would recommend as a veteran and a member
of the community that you approve all ofthe points that staff has requested approval for.
Cupertino Planning Connnission
11
August 23, 2005
Andy Huang, Oak VaUey resident:
· His family selected Gate of Heaven cemetery for parents' resting place because of its
memorial park setting. By changing the setting to a graveyard setting, is a direct violation of
the contract signed. It is inappropriate for the cemetery to make a substantial change after we
spent hard earned income into the property as a shareholder.
· Request the Planning Commission to help defend the right of the shareholders that the Gate of
Heaven cemetery be held responsible for what they have done and charged in the past.
· As shown in the video, the cemetery has 30 violations with the vertical markers in direct
violation of the use permit since 1960. I am worried that if the Planning Commission
approved tonight the change in use permit, how will I explain to my daughter about a business
in Cupertino who has directly violated the rule of Cupertino. Not only has the Planning
Commission not assessed any penalty charges against a criminal, now you are going to pass
the law to allow the criminal activity into a non-criminal activity. How can I explain to my
children? I think it sets a bad precedent for our children.
· I urge the Planning Commission to reconsider what kind of message you are sending to the
children of Cupertino.
· As a neighbor, any time there is a neighbor who wants to make a substantial change, there is
always a reason. In our simple mind, the reason the Gate of Heaven wants to make a proposed
change is financial, they want more business.
Raymond Gamma, representing American Legion Post 118 and VFW Post 173982 in Santa
Clara:
· Thanked the Planning Department for working on a solution for the veterans' memorial,
particularly at a time when 100,000 servicemen are serving the country in harm's way. The
decision is not only timely, but appropriate.
· It is appropriate to honor our servicemen and women with beautiful monuments, we must
always truly support them in every way.
· He cited an example of a developer constructing a building which impacted the view of a
homeowner. The homeowner sued but the city determined his view ended at his property line.
Charlie Baker, Cupertino resident:
· There were 16 million people in World War II; less than 5 million remain. We need all the
memorials we can get to keep the memory of those. There are many other veterans who are
worthy of a memorial.
Connie Bartling:
· Husband is buried in the cemetery.
· Encouraged the return of the memorials.
· Said she was not in favor of the upright markers.
Fred Fry, Canyon Oak Way:
· Opposed to the vertical markers; you should enforce the rules as you are comparatively
enforcing them on the community.
· I don't think it is fair if you are going to change the rules for them; you have to change the
rules for us also.
Suba Garlapati, Cupertino resident:
· Regular visitor to Rancho San Antonio park.
· Visitors to the park were amazed at such a beautiful, relaxed setting, with no vertical markers.
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
August 23, 2005
· Questioned why they wanted to spoil the beauty of the present cemetery and impact the view.
· By putting the concrete and vertical walls, you will spoil the nature of the view as the
uniqueness of the place; I strongly urge you to not allow the vertical markers.
Edy Madsen:
· Husband is buried at Gate of Heaven cemetery.
· Urged the return of the veterans' markers to honor the veterans.
Chair Wong:
. Clarified that the veterans' memorial issue was resolved and it would be returned soon.
Jake Kapowich:
· Said he was a member of the Marine Corps for 33 years.
· I think in a judgment like this, you have to think of the people behind me who live here, their
houses are beautiful, and so is the cemetery. I visited the cemetery and talked with the
neighbors and I hope the best thing you can do is use good common sense and make a fair
decision.
Paul Blefari:
· I am pleased to understand that we are going to have the veterans' memorials. I am a WWII
veteran and there is only a few of us left; I feel we need the memorial to remember our
veterans, especially the ones now.
· This is a cemetery, not a park. I think we should please the people who are going to be there
and do the things they would like; it is a cemetery.
Kim James, Canyon Oak Way:
· The MRSD has now taken over the area surrounding Canyon Oak and they are making a new
trail and it will loop all around the cemetery back over to the Snyder House and back through
the open space. Anyone who walks that trail will see the vertical markers and the terracing;
there is no way to screen that !Tom the loop trail.
· The other points are the environmental impact which has not been looked at yet. What type of
soil do we have, how well with these hold up? Weare in an earthquake area; we are not
directly on a fault line but very close, and we need to look at those.
· Relative to safety, the photos of Rose Hill cemetery that were shown showed sidewalks and
the cemetery's proposal does not have sidewalks. I don't know if they can do it without
sidewalks for safety reasons and they do not have to ask for a permit to build sidewalks. They
could come back and put in the sidewalks without having to come back to you to do that, it is
just an improvement; it is not an upright statuary.
· There are still unanswered questions. How many terraces will there really be? Originally we
were told 10 to 15 and staff s comment said 6 to 8 so that is still not clearly marked out. How
many years will it take for these terraces to look like the Rose Hill Terraces?
· Please consider approving the permit without the vertical markers.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Chair Wong:
· Requested Mr. Lindberg return to the podium to respond to comments made.
· How many terraces were there and how long would it take it to look like the photos shown?
Cupertino Planning Connnission
13
August 23, 2005
Mr. Lindberg:
· We think that the smaller of the two sections which are the ones on the eastern side, can
probably handle between 5 and 6 rows; the other one would be between 6 and 8, perhaps 9 on
the big section by the Snyder House.
· We would not use the same landscaping as used in Southern California. It is not apples to
apples. If you look at the landscaping that we put on the drawing shown, it is fairly tight
shrubbery, so it will be more commensurate with up here; it would look mature !Tom a
landscaping standpoint in a year.
Com. Giefer:
· For the record, the landscape architect indicated three years for the landscaping to mature.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Thanked everyone involved in the process. I knew that if all sides negotiated in good faith, you
would spend far more hours doing it and come up with a much better solution than if the
Planning Commission imposed one after a half hour of deliberation in a meeting. That clearly
seems to be the case, and you are all to be congratulated. It sounds like it was a relationship
building exercise as well.
· I am extremely pleased to see that the veterans' memorial is back; I think as a city and
community, it is important we show how important it is to honor our veterans in a respectful
and appropriate way. I believe this memorial will be that to the community and neighborhood.
· From the standpoint of private property and property rights, I think it is important that
individual owners of property be allowed to display religious symbols of their choice on their
property and I am glad that the neighbors and the cemetery were able to resolve that issue in a
way that could happen and it would still not negatively impact the neighborhood.
· We come to the hardest issue of all - the vertical markers, and like all land use issues, this is
not an easy one. However, if I start out with one of the key points to me is that the original
Use Permit excluded vertical markers. One speaker said that property owners have a right to
improve their property and that is correct; property rights is an issue for me. However, in this
case, the cemetery gave up one of those key property rights in return for being able to develop
the cemetery in the first piace. They gave up the right to vertical markers in return to build a
cemetery in the first place. That was then; this is now, and we fast forward to 2005 and the
area has changed substantially and we now have a very large residential area in addition to a
cemetery.
· The next key point is that when the property was sold to the developer, apparently there was
no disclosure as to an intention on the part of the cemetery to go ahead and seek vertical
markers at some time in the future. I think that is an important point.
· The last key point is something Mr. Edwards said and that is if in fact there was no cemetery
there now, and a cemetery was being proposed, and it was being proposed with vertical
markers, would we in fact approve it? I would have to say I don't think we would.
· In conclusion, I think when I look at it as a property rights issue, for me the decision is to not
allow the vertical markers and leave it the way it was. Everything else looks like it is resolved,
which I would support.
Com. Chen:
· Thanked the representatives !Tom the cemetery for making so many changes to accommodate
the residents' needs and thanked the residents for working so hard to cooperate with the
cemetery in making the changes.
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
August 23, 2005
· Regarding the vertical markers, I heard all the comments and read all the material and believe
there are many good reasons for keeping the markers flat, and I see only one reason for
making the vertical markers, which is the marketing reason.
· I would also like to support to keep the markers flat on the ground.
Com. Giefer:
· Corns. Miller and Chen did a great job of summarizing my thoughts.
· Thanked the Oak Valley residents and the Gate of Heaven Cemetery for the time they spent in
trying to resolve as many issues as possible. It is now much better and we came up with a
better solution altogether for all parties involved.
· My rationale is different than what has been heard before. The discussion point mentioned
earlier with regard to screening the vertical markers, and is this done adequately to protect the
view from the homeowners. I think there other stakeholders that aren't mentioned and those
are the taxpayers who are paying for the open space and as additional trails are opened up and
people are using the open space, potentially there could be additional homes at the Hansen
Quarry Site in the future; they will have a vantage point looking at the vertical markers. I am
not in favor of supporting vertical markers. I think it is a lovely parcel as it is today.
· I also took the initiative to talk to some people that were visiting the cemetery today, and
asked them for their opinion, because I didn't feel their views were adequately represented. Of
the handful of people I spoke to, every one of them liked horizontal markers and felt as Ms.
Ng did, that adding vertical markers would change the entire memorial park or cemetery, and
it would not be an appealing addition to the facility. That is self selecting because people have
chosen to bury their loved ones there because they liked the connection to the open space and I
understand the Gates of Heaven trying to reach out to a new market by providing another
product for potential customers to select from.
· However, I do agree with Mr. Wong who indicated he would feel as though the contract he
had with the Gates of Heaven would be in violation because they changed the complexity and
the profile of the site. For those reasons, I agree with the proposal except for I would delete
adding the vertical markers, and remain with the horizontal markers.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that once the veterans' memorial markers are approved, then can proceed to install them.
Com. Saadati:
· I share the opinion expressed by colleagues.
· Regarding the type of soil and earthquake zone, the proposed wall is only 2-1/2 feet tall which
is not tall enough to be affected majorly by earthquake or type of soil. However, it will have
some impact on the landscape and potential erosion and other things that heavy rain could
cause.
· Initially the permit for the cemetery was approved based on flat markers. I believe the
cemetery will continue to do business with flat markers, and I don't foresee that denial of the
vertical markers would have an adverse impact on their business, and it would still be a desired
place for many people.
· I am grateful for the cooperation and discussion that took place among all the parties.
· I support approval of the application without vertical markers.
Chair Wong:
· Thanked Mr. Lindberg for attending the meeting and outreaching toward the community.
There are many stakeholders here tonight and Mr. Lindberg did a very good job in outreaching
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
August 23, 2005
toward the community, reaching a compromise on the 8 important items brought tonight for
the application.
· I want to acknowledge the veterans who are here tonight; I can understand their frustration of a
temporary bureaucratic snafu regarding the veterans' memorial. He explained that there was a
process that needs to be followed, with no intention of disrespect to the veterans. Hopefully
once the memorial gets approved as Mr. Wheeler said, he would like to have this immediately
implemented in order to honor the veterans.
· The customer base of the Gate of Heaven cemetery - I spent the afternoon walking the
cemetery and it is a beautiful serene memorial park, but it is a graveyard - a cemetery. We are
proud and honored to have the cemetery in our city.
· I think one of the reasons why people are buying plots on the site is because of the flat markers
and unless Mr. Lindberg showed me some kind of market research that his customer base
preferred vertical markers, that would weigh into my decision.
· I agree that Mr. Lindberg has a right to develop his property and to expand his property; there
are 58 acres, half of which is developed.
· Also one thing Mr. Wheeler brought out which resonated with me regarded safety, handicap
issues and drainage.
· Regarding the veterans' amphitheater suggested by Com. Giefer, the niche feature is already
present and by having vertical grave stones and retaining walls, based on those three things, I
think Mr. Wheeler hit the spot. In 1962 flat markers were permitted and it can always be
changed; you can always have a public hearing; that is why we are here tonight to listen to the
public, listen to the customer base and all of you; and it seems like there is consensus that folks
do want flat markers. But it is Mr. Lindberg's right to ask for vertical markers. I also agree
with my colleagues and we also have to take into consideration the people who use the trails.
· He acknowledged the audience and their decorum; noting that the first meeting was
contentious, and tonight 7 of the 8 items have been resolved.
· He said that he supported the flat markers, not the vertical markers.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve
Application U-2005-04 per the model resolution with the exception that
upright markers are not approved.
Chair Wong:
· Referring to the model resolution, Item 4 - landscaping plan; he asked staff if the Planning
Commission could look at the landscaping plan and approve it instead of the Director of
Community Development.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that they could, but noted that the reference was to upright markers; therefore a
landscaping plan behind the veterans' memorials would likely be the extent of the landscaping
and along the edge with the single family homes.
Com. Giefer:
· Relative to the change being made, one of the points that is currently in the upright markers
and statuary, indicates that they can erect statues up to I2 feet tall without other approval; is
that a number we are all comfortable with?
Cupertino Planning Connnission
16
August 23, 2005
Mr. Piasecki:
o One of the suggestions was to delete some text and replace some. You also need to resolve the
issue of are you going to allow the existing 36 upright markers to remain. It probably should
be put in the Use Permit so that it is clear.
Com. Giefer:
· With regards to that, if we did not include it, then it would be illegal non conforming.
· Expressed concern that if it is permitted now, it could be perceived as giving them something
for bad behavior.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The Planning Commission has faced this before and you have dealt with it; I think it is almost
deminimus in this case given the size of the cemetery. You faced it with tree removals and
you may want to beef up some of the landscaping to compensate for the illegal activity. We
don't know when that occurred, but I think it would be difficult to go back to those families; it
would be in the Commission's and community's interest to simply say we will let those
remam.
· We can do the landscaping, they can come to the Planning Commission, but we need to take
some lines out in that condition as well as reference to the vertical markers.
Chair Wong:
· Said he wanted more detail in the landscaping plan.
o It will be noticed to the public, so the public can also look at it and I am sure that the applicant
wants to work together with the neighborhood as well as the Mid Peninsula group as well.
· Said he spent a day looking at the headstones which were put in 15 or 20 years ago; Mr.
Lindberg said it was before his time.
o He said that he could not imagine going back to the families about changes.
Com. Giefer:
o I am not suggesting we go back to those families and say you have to remove your headstone.
I am not suggesting we make any change there at all; I am trying to think of a way we are not
rewarding them for inappropriate behavior that occurred in the past as an encouragement for
flagrant abuse of the law in the future.
Chair Wong:
o I support that there were four more contracts that they are trying to negotiate with them and I
believe we should let Mr. Lindberg try to negotiate. If not, we should honor those contracts
because it is something in the past that was unfortunately done wrong, but we have to move
forward.
Vice Chair Miller:
o Said he agreed with Chair Wong, and that staff would suggest appropriate wording.
Mr. Piasecki:
o There are a total of 8 conditions that were applied to the use permit 2005-04; condition I and 2
relate to approved exhibits and approved site plan would remain the same and then condition 3
currently labeled upright markers and statuary, delete the word "upright" and call it "markers
and statuary". First sentence which reads "The cemetery has been developed as a memorial
park with flat horizontal markers" can remain as stated. I would suggest a sentence to follow
Cupertino Planning Connnission
17
August 23, 2005
that states "Any new markers shall be horizontal consisting with the original use permit. The
36 vertical markers are allowed to remain."
· Delete the next two sentences "Upright markers shall be allowed only in the areas shown in
the site plan. Any future proposal for upright markers for statuary over 12 feet etc. shall
require an amendment to the Use Permit". There should be no reference to upright markers.
· The next sentence, delete the word "other" and begin the sentence with "Statuary or changes
deemed minor shall be approved by Design Review or Director's minor mod that is part of our
regular procedures." We will leave that in and delete the next entire paragraph that refers to
upright markers approved as part of this permit.
· "and then the colors shall be muted.." - Delete those two sentences in the second paragraph of
Condition No.3.
· Condition 4 - referring to the landscape plan; "the detailed landscape plan shall be approved
by the Planning Commission" prior to implementation of the use permit, the landscape plan
shall include landscaping ...." Delete the words "low shrubbery near the existing upright
markers and" - unless you want to leave that in.
· Landscaping plan shall included landscaping for the new niche feature and trellis in the
veterans' section." Delete the next sentence "Additional landscape screening for the new
upright marker shall be provided" - delete the entire sentence. That takes out all the reference
to the upright markers, makes it clear that you are only approving the horizontal markers and
requires that the landscape plan come back to the Planning Commission and allows the vertical
markers that were put in illegally to remain.
Chair Wong:
· Regarding the veterans; memorial, can they go ahead and implement it immediately?
Mr. Piasecki:
· With this approval they can; but they would have to come back to you with the landscape plan
that you asked for first.
Chair Wong:
· How can we make it so that they can implement the veterans' memorial.
Mr. Piasecki:
· You would change Condition 4 that says "a detailed landscape plan shall be approved by the
Planning Commission prior to implementation of the use permit" and state "with the exception
of the veterans' memorial which can be installed along with the adjacent landscaping," subject
to my review and approval, and I will do it at the building permit stage.
Chair Wong:
· Item 6, buffer area, "The buffer area shall be established along the east property line between
the residential parcel and the cemetery" - Can we state landscaping maybe trees or shrubs
recorded against the property? Relative to the oleanders removed, my concern is that if there
is a new director at the cemetery, those trees can also be removed, and for screening for Rl
neighborhood we have trees recorded on the property to make sure that in the future they
won't get removed.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Even a broader suggestion would be that all of these conditions and any of conditions !Tom the
original use permit that are still effective would be recorded against the property; that way you
Cupertino Planning Connnission
18
August 23, 2005
have it all in there rather than just partial; in the event the cemetery was sold to somebody else.
This would show up in the review of the documents of sale.
Amended Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, per the staff
suggestion.
Ms. Wordell:
· I just wanted to add my commendation to all the people involved in this; the efforts were
extraordinary; and I am amazed at the amount of time, patience and commitment that all the
people have put into this. It is a tribute to all of them.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Noted that the deadline for an appeal to be filed is 14 days !Tom date of approval. Appeal to
be submitted in writing to the City Clerk's office and the item will be scheduled to be heard by
the City Council.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Wong declared a recess.
5.
U-2005-12, ASA-2005-08,
EXC-2005-13 Tony
Pantaleoni (Marianist
Province of the U.S.)
22622 Marianist Way
Use Permit to convert a retreat center to a retirement
center and construct a 6,900 square foot addition.
Architectural and Site Approval for a 6,900 square
foot addition to an existing retreat/retirement center.
Fence Exception to locate an electronic gate on the
Merriman A venue entrance to a proposed retirement
Center. Planning Commission decision final unless
Appealed.
Aki Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for use permit to convert a retreat center and construct a 6,900
square foot addition; Architectural and Site Approval for a 6,900 square foot addition to an
existing retreat/retirement center and a fence exception to locate an electronic gate on the
Merriman Avenue entrance to a proposed retirement center, as outlined in the staff report.
· The site is accessed by two parking lots, one located off Alcalde Road which will provide 14
spaces; the site already maintains the parking spaces; however, the parking spaces along
Alcalde Road are primarily serviced by an adjacent lot owned by the Marianists; because of
this staff is requesting that the applicant record an easement on the property to maintain the 14
parking spaces on the site and also the driveway access along Alcalde Road.
· Staff recommends a condition to add park impact fees to the project site, because previously
the site was used as a retreat center where park impact fees were not applied to the project; and
the facility is being changed to a retirement living facility.
· She reviewed the floor plan, elevations, noise impacts, architectural design, landscaping and
lighting, fencing and fencing exception, signage and neighborhood meeting as outlined in the
staff report.
· Staff recommends a condition related to the lighting that they reduce the height of the lighting
fixtures to a height below the fence level and that will not create impacts onto the adjacent
residential neighborhood.
· Staff does not recommend approval of the electronic gates as they feel that applicant's request
does not meet the conditions required for an electronic gate.
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
August 23, 2005
. Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval in
accordance with the model resolution, including the additional condition regarding the park
impact fees. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the fence exception in
accordance with the model resolution.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked how the park impact fees would be levied.
Ms. Honda:
· The park impact fee would be considered similar to the single family residence; it is one of the
lower amounts that we could charge for the park impact fee. The reason is that we believe
there will be 27 new residents at the site and will likely be using the surrounding park areas in
the city. The park impact fee charged to the site would be $15,750. The reason it is
considered similar to a single family residence is that the ordinance defines dwelling units
based upon having one shared kitchen and living as a family unit. We looked at the
possibilities if it could be considered under any other type of facility, but it does fit as a single
family.
Vice Chair Miller:
. If the gate was moved in 20 to 25 feet, would it make a difference in terms of the ordinance?
Ms. Honda:
. The gate ordinance does not specify whether it is 20 or 25 feet and it is basically because they
are requesting an electronic gate vs. a manual gate. However, the Planning Commission could
consider whether or not they would like to consider that for approval.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Questioned if it was in the staff report that it would not be an issue if the gate was moved
further inside the property.
Ms. Honda:
· We did recommend that so the property would not be considered a gated community; that
possibly the applicant could consider providing an internal fence that would not be visible
from the street.
Ms. Wordell:
· Even possibly just for pedestrians, so it wouldn't be a driveway gate. If they wanted to secure
the building and secure the residents in the building you could have a gate that people would
walk through and have a card system rather than something that would prevent cars !Tom
driving in.
Com. Chen:
. Are there specific concerns for not having an electronic gate for the site?
Ms. Honda:
. One ofthe biggest concerns is it is a community question or issue if you want to encourage the
look of a gated community for this particular retirement facility that is surrounded primarily by
single family and duplex units. Also the fact that this gate will be located close to the
driveway, we are not sure if it would have an impact on cars being parked in the street or
queuing out on the street waiting for gates to open and close. The concern is if the gate is
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
August 23, 2005
located close to the street, that it would provide difficulty if they are waiting for the gates to
open; they have to park in the street and wait until the gate opens.
Chair Wong:
· Relative to the park impact fee since the Marianists could be considered a non-profit group and
they are serving their brothers and sisters, I don't understand why after the fact the staff report
came out, there was a park fee?
Mr. Piasecki:
· The park ordinance is not specific to non-profit or for-profit agencies; it only allows the
removal of park fee for a low income housing project. It was concluded that it can get down to
the lowest fee for one single family home, and everybody in the community has a vested
interest in the upkeep and maintenance of our park system. We expect some of the residents in
this project will go over to Monta Vista park and use it, and consequently the project should
contribute to that overall effort, even though it is minimal.
Chair Wong:
· My concern is that this is a non-profit organization serving a non-profit community of elderly
folks, and plus if you had a chance to walk with Br. John in the facility, it is a beautiful park
like setting with a lot of open space. I can understand the city is looking for fees, but to
impose it on a non-profit organization and the money spent to remodel it, I don't feel it is
rational to do it.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The ordinance does not provide an exemption because you have a non-profit status.
Chair Wong:
· Regarding the fence issue, I understand that the ordinance says that we want to have a
community that is not gated; looking at the findings here has staff ever thought about No.4 the
development is secluded; it is in a semi-rural area of Monta Vista and No.2, No. 5 the
electronic gate are needed for demonstrated security reasons, both staff and Br. John brought
up is that they will be servicing elderly folks, brothers and sisters, and they are concerned
about those folks wandering off the premises into the semi-rural area. Would those findings
coming !Tom the Planning Commission suffice getting an electronic gate.
Ms. Honda:
· The Planning Commission would have to make that determination. Later on in the meeting
when we discuss the fence ordinance amendments, I will bring up that discussion as well as
Planning Commission may need to consider how to define what is considered secluded and
what is considered demonstrated security reason.
Chair Wong:
· I am trying to find some flexibility in the ordinance because we haven't reviewed it yet and we
are getting some applicants now and that is why City Council asked us to review it, so I am
trying to work within to find some flexibility to interpret to try to get electronic gate.
Com. Giefer:
· One of the points made in the model resolution is that the solar panels be no more than 4 feet
off the ground. Are those primarily used for heating the swim pool?
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
August 23, 2005
Ms. Honda:
· There are solely used for the swim pool heating.
· Clarified that a private non-licensed retirement facility was a private facility owned and
operated solely by the Marianist Brothers; they are not required to be licensed by the state, and
will not have to meet certain state standards for the retirement facility because it is privately
run and owned.
Com. Giefer:
· Said the Marianist Way entrance was padlocked. Is that legal to padlock it, because the fire
department can access it through Alcalde? Isn't that a violation of our fire department code?
If we do not grant an electronic gate, are they going to padlock the gate in the future?
Ms. Honda:
· I know that our fire department does require access throughout any site. I was not aware it
was locked.
Chair Wong:
· I did talk to Br. John and they will answer that question.
Tony Pantaleoni, project architect:
· There is minimal traffic on Merriman and presently the gate is locked for security and also the
building is not occupied. We have a gardener there maintaining some of the garden, but there
is no one there; we have had it locked for a while now. We have had problems where the
public has walked !Tom Alcalde Road over to Merriman Road; we had to make sure it was
closed offfor security and safety.
· In our conversations with the fire department and the police department, they had no problems
with the electronic gate, they said that there is usually a small box that they break for the key.
· If there is an emergency, they would have to break it or we would have to have a lock key box
for the fire department to break it.
Br. John:
· There are three padlocks, one of them does have the County of Santa Clara and that is the key
that the fire department has. We did have an incident about a year ago and it worked. The
main entrance has a lock box which the fire department also has a key too; they open that key
and get into the building so they don't have to break the doors.
Mr. Pantaleoni:
· The Brothers bought the property in 1975, they built the building themselves and completed it
in 1978-79. For the first 8 to 10 years of operation, the building was used to train young men
to be brothers and priests. Unfortunately the recruits were starting to dwindle so they decided
to convert the facility into a retreat facility and then it was used as a retreat facility until about
two years ago. During that time, many of them are getting older and need places to retire.
There are currently 15 Brothers on San Juan Road and the villa adjoining it, and they would be
moving down; that property put on the market for sale and they would move to the new facility
when completed. The facility is not handicapped accessible; we have to upgrade all the
pathways, widening the corridors. Currently two bedrooms share a bathroom, we will be
expanding the bathrooms in order to provide independent bathrooms for each brother.
· We had a meeting with the neighbors, notified about 40 neighbors, put fliers in their mailbox,
held a meeting on August 6th; there were 8 or 9 neighbors attended and voiced some concerns.
He illustrated the parking spaces, entrances.
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
August 23, 2005
· We have no problems with most ofthe conditions of approval but we did want to touch base
on the gate. In the event of an emergency someone would have to go out to the gate, unlock
the gate and let someone in. We feel we should be able to operate it !Tom inside one of the
nurses' areas. Also for the security of the brothers, there will be meandering around; we have
access to the rose garden.
· Relative to the exterior lighting, we originally proposed more light fixtures and as shown in
the handout, it shows the pole lights that are eliminated (13). We don't want to light up the
neighbors' properties, and since the brothers are getting older, they are not going to be walking
around much at night, so we left mostly the pole lights close to the buildings and in the main
area. There are existing lights there.
· He expressed concern about the condition stating that no light pole would exceed the height of
a six foot fence; presently the light poles are 9 feet tall. He requested that the conditions of
approval be adjusted to accommodate the height; and noted that the lights weren't on all night.
· Relative to the statues, he requested that the height be changed in the conditions to "not to
exceed 8 feet" so that they could mount the 6 foot statues on two foot bases with annuals or
perennials surrounding the bases.
Br. John:
· Noted that there were other Marianists in other states who were interested in the retirement
facilities. He thanked staff for their help with the application.
· In response to Com. Saadati question about deliveries, he noted that when the new facility is
built, there will be food service deliveries and linen service delivery, which would drive up
Alcalde during normal business hours. Presently there are no deliveries as needed supplies are
picked up at Costco or other stores by employees.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Keith Hergott, Cupertino resident:
· Has been associated with the Marianists for about 25 years and was there when they first built
the center. At that time he suggested the facility would be an ideal retirement facility and he
was pleased to see that coming to !Tuition.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Com. Saadati:
· The improvement wili be a welcome addition. Said he was not opposed to increasing the
height for the statues as they were inside the property. The addition will not have a negative
impact on the neighborhood and is consistent with the surrounding area.
· Said he supported the electronic gate as long as the electronic portion is hidden in such a way
that it will not be a big visual impact in the area. There is an opportunity to put some
landscaping in front of the gate; the gate would serve a purpose for the facility relative to ease
and security.
Com. Giefer:
· Complimented the Marianists for including the neighbors in meetings and including them in
input.
· Supported increasing the statue height to 8 feet provided that they are adequately screened
!Tom neighbors, with a condition included that they have to be placed within 10 or 12 feet
!Tom the fence line or state they need to be adequately screened.
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
August 23, 2005
· Support the additions and other changes as part of the application; however, I agree with staff
and do not support the electronic gate. It adds a certain air of exclusivity to our community
where I think that we want everyone to look like a good neighbor and a gate is not a fit. She
said she would not object to an interior pedestrian electronic or card key gate.
Chair Wong:
· Asked that the findings made on No.4, the development is secluded and No.5, the electronic
gate is needed for demonstrated security reasons because Br. John was concerned about the
elderly Marianists wandering off. He asked if they would consider making that exception
based on their concerns.
Com. Giefer:
· With regard to security and elderly brothers wandering away, I think the convalescent hospital
on the corner of Voss and Stevens Creek has the same issue and they specialize in dementia;
and I don't see electronic gates around their facility. They have done that and I would think
that the Marianists would also be able to do that as well. If it was with an internal pedestrian
gate that somehow enclosed the buildings; I don't know how that is done; but I don't think a
vehicular access electronic gate is a solution.
· In my findings, I don't see this as rural; I see it as part ofthe neighborhood and I think it needs
to be connected to the neighborhood.
Com. Chen:
· Said she supported the increase in statue height to 8 feet.
· She said supported the electronic gate to help protect the residents; it is a piece of property for
specific use, not a regular residence.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he supported the addition which is well designed in terms of its functionality and
architecture and how well it fits in with the area.
· Supports the increase in statue height to 8 feet.
· No objection to the height of the lights as long as the spillover is measured and it is not
intrusive to the neighbors.
· Relative to the electronic gate, the issue is that the property has two entrances and people are
inclined to walk through the property !Tom one side to the other as a shortcut which presents
a security issue which a normal residence would not have, and you would not do at the
convalescent home either. I am inclined to look for a solution to the problem and if the gate
is a solution and we can arrive at that as being an acceptable solution, that is good. In some
aspects it can be considered to be a mixed use project and the argument can be made that the
gate is important because it does separate the two parking uses.
Ms. Wordell:
· Commented that traditionally mixed use refers to different types of land uses such as
commerciaVresidential or industriaVresidential, and said the proposed project did not fit the
traditional definition of mixed use.
Vice Chair Miller:
· If people are cutting through the property when it is left open, it constitutes a security issue
and perhaps my colleagues could weigh in on whether than is a legitimate security issue to
require an electronic gate.
Cupertino Planning Connnission
24
August 23, 2005
Com. Saadati:
· I think there is some legitimacy to that. Said that it was not an issue to him whether it was
electronic or not.
Com. Giefer:
· I wouldn't change my mind; I haven't heard the applicant say they had substantial vandalism
or problems with people being confronted or attacked, which are security issues. A benign
pedestrian taking a shortcut to get to the park is not a security risk in my opinion.
Br. John:
· When it was a retreat facility, the gardens were beautiful and people would walk through
Alcalde and through our property and go over to V oss Avenue which is a shortcut. Ladies
with babies in strollers would come through the property; and when our insurance people came
they said that there was potential liability if the lady or baby fell on their property. That is
why we did close the property and in the beginning the neighbors were disappointed. Many
places post No Trespassing signs because it is an insurance risk.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Based on what I have heard, I think that this is not setting a precedent because we don't have
that many retirement homes in Cupertino that are asking for gates and we don't have any other
retirement home in Cupertino with two entrances and exits.
· I think that we can justify for security reasons the electronic gate. I support the gate; and I am
in favor of having the gate put back 25 feet so that it does not become a traffic issue while
someone is waiting for the gate to be open.
Chair Wong:
· Asked for commissioners' comments on his concerns about the park impact fees. Are they fair
for a non-profit organization?
Vice Chair Miller:
· If the ordinance requires it, staff is correct; it is a relatively minimal fee and when put in the
scope of the cost of doing the project, it is minor.
Chair Wong:
· The Marianists are not going to sell the land to another housing project; there will be a quasi-
public use in Cupertino benefiting the Marianists organization, and allowing Marianists from
other states to take advantage of the facilities.
· The architecture designed in 1975 is a beautiful facility; they will continue expanding the
facility using the craftsman theme.
· Supports the increase in statue height, but agrees that it include a condition stating that it
should be screened and away !Tom the property line.
· Relative to the lighting, I support allowing flexibility to remove some lighting.
· Regarding the gated fence, I understand where some of the commissioners are coming from
and I also understand the concerns of some of the private property owners. It is a lovely site
and would be nice if we can keep the site open for the public; but it is a private property issue.
Perhaps the Marianists would have an open house once or twice a year or have a block party
which is a good way to bring the community together.
· Based on the findings made by three commissioners, I do support an electronic gate. Tonight
we will be addressing the fence ordinance to allow some flexibility, and one issue is safety.
Roxanna Baker, Grubb & Ellis, representing the landlord:
· Requested approval of the application to move forward.
· Said that the space was difficult to rent out because it is zoned for recreation.
· Answered questions about ownership of the various store!Tonts.
· Said that she was not aware of the location of the next closest Check For Cash.
The applicant was not present.
Ciddy Wordell presented the staff report:
· Application is for Use Permit to operate a 1,167 square foot deferred deposit transactions
business in an existing shopping center, which is a conditional use in a Planned
Recreation Entertainment and Limited Commercial zoning district.
· Reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the attached staff report.
· Staff recommends approval of the application.
Use Permit to operate a deferred deposit transactions business
in an existing shopping center, which is a conditional use in a
Planned Recreation and Entertainment Zoning District.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
U-2005-10
Steven Sengson
(Check Into Cash)
20916 Homestead Rd.
6.
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Chen, to approve fence
exception to allow an electronic gate for Application EXC-2005-13 per the
plan received tonight. (Vote: 4-1-0; Com. Giefer No.)
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second Com. Chen, to approve Application ASA-
2005-0S as amended, including additional conditions relative to lighting;
height of statues and screening from property owners. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Ms. Wordell:
· There is an opportunity to do that, although it does require a half-acre of playing field in order
to get credit. They would not be able to get credit.
Vice Chair Miller:
· When we do allocate a park fee, do we give credit when there is open space that is part of the
proj ect.
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve
Application U-2005-12 to include the park impact fee.
Motion:
Com. Giefer:
· Said that if the motion included approval of the electronic gate, she would vote No. She
clarified that she supported the project in every way except for the electronic gate.
· An electronic gate should be done on a case-by-case issue and the applicant tonight has
provided sufficient information which makes me comfortable to make those findings to
support that.
August 23, 2005
25
Cupertino Planning Commission
'j
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
August 23, 2005
Chair Wong:
· Asked staff how to encourage the various property owners to refurbish the center.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that the effective way is when they come in for discretionary approval, you can get the
kind of improvements you want for their property. Relative to coordinating with the other
property owners, it would be difficult.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing; there was no one present who wished to speak on the
application.
Com. Chen, Com. Saadati and Vice Chair Miller:
· Said they support the project.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she did not support the project, as she felt it was the wrong type of business for the
specific site; and its proximity to Homestead High School and an entertainment center.
· Clarified that the issue was that she felt it did not fit in with the way the properties are
currently zoned for entertainment. It is a financial institution.
· The applicant is not present; they may have another outlet in a nearby city.
· The density of that and the type of business placed in the area that is zoned here, feels like spot
zoning to me. In my opinion, it is the wrong type of business for this particular area.
Chair Wong:
· Asked staff to clarifY if the Planning Commission had the right to say yes or no to what kind of
business can come in as long as it fills the zoning. It is a financial institution.
Ms. Wordell:
· Clarified that the wording in the zoning is that it can be permitted by the Planning Commission
if it says that it is not in direct conflict with the overall character of the center.
· If you made a finding as a majority that it didn't support the overall character of the center,
then you could deny it.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she did not feel the majority is going to feel that way. I think there is too little
information; it is in the same mental category as a pawn shop; it is out of character in my mind
for an entertaining area.
· The density of the businesses, all 14 of them could be in Sunnyvale on Stelling and DeAnza
for all we know. There is a lack of information for me as well. They could be in cities
scattered throughout the Bay Area far and wide, but I don't support the findings that I see here.
Chair Wong:
· I support the project; I understand where Com. Giefer is coming !Tom, but retail is difficult to
find in Cupertino, hard to rent a space; many of our commercial centers are being eaten up by
housing and we need to protect our commercial centers because many of them are going to
neighboring cities.
· The applicant has tried to find something better; however, this is the best they can do. I do
support it; I wish we could find a better tenant in this location.
· If there is a concern about the business being close to Homestead High School, the residents
can file a complaint.
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
August 23, 2005
Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Chen, to approve Application
U-200S-10. (Vote: 4-1-0; Com. Giefer No.)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
7. Consideration of amendments to fence ordinance (Chapter 16.28) and sign ordinance
(Chapter 17.32)
Ms. Honda presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the staff report.
· At the June 14, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission asked staffto bring back
the Fence and Sign Ordinance for review and discussion. The fence ordinance is being
reviewed as a result of a recent fence exception application for an electronic gate system,
which was denied by the DRC, upheld by the Planning Commission and subsequently the City
Council denied the appeal to grant the request for the fence exception.
· The sign ordinance is brought forward for review also.
· The issues raised at the March Planning Commission meeting relative to the fence ordinance
included:
o Distinctions between a manually operated gate vs. an electronically operated gate;
o Interpretation of meanings for conditions requiring "secluded" developments and
"demonstrated security reasons;"
o "Safety" as a consideration in addition to "security"
o Community needs.
· She reviewed the policies in other cities as set forth in the staff report.
· Reviewed the alternatives the Planning Commission may consider in recommending
amendments to the section ofthe fence ordinance.
Chair Wong:
· As we have major developments in Cupertino, we also encourage architectural articulation that
may exceed a height requirement such as a tower element or a circle element to bring
articulation to the design of either the building or a fence.
· He said he understood what was said regarding the white picket fence with a smaller
articulation, but in some of our developments in Cupertino, we have been encouraging it and I
question why you are discouraging it on this particular case.
Ms. Wordell:
· Presently there are no requirements for articulation on fences; it might be something you
would want to bring up as some design guidelines.
Chair Wong:
· It shows that staff is concerned about some of these articulations being too large or massive.
Ms. Honda:
· I think staft's concern is we don't know how much higher these post caps may go or the size
they may extend to in the future; at this point wanting to bring that forth is basically something
that the Planning Commission can consider.
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
August 23, 2005
· In addition to the fence ordinance, staff is also bringing the sign ordinance to the Planning
Commission for review, at the request of the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff is
requesting the Planning Commission's direction on amendments for the sign ordinance.
· Staff has met with the Chamber of Commerce; however, they have not had a chance to discuss
their different issues are with the sign ordinance. They will be coming back to staff within the
next month with feedback.
· Staff is requesting Planning Commission direction on how to proceed with the sign and
fencing ordinances.
Vice Chair Miller:
· How was the application noticed?
Ms. Honda:
· This is conducted as a study session so it is just for the Planning Commission and is not
noticed as a public hearing. At the time when the Commission is ready to hear it as actual
amendments to the zoning ordinance, we will notice it to the public.
Vice Chair Miller:
· We want to get feedback from the community before we decide what direction to go, and on
the sign ordinance clearly the Chamber of Commerce is appropriate. Also we could probably
go back on a number of sign applications that we have had over the last couple of years, and
make sure that those people be noticed as well.
· On the fence ordinance, there are some streets in town which seem to have a propensity to
come up and ask for fence exceptions. We may look at noticing those streets and also a lot of
fence exceptions seems to come having to do with flag lots; just looking for people who would
potentially have an interest in this; whether we notice the entire city or a selected area to notice
that would have a particular interest in the application.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said they could advertise in the Cupertino Scene, and possibly do a citywide mailing.
Com. Chen:
· Regarding the sign ordinance, I agree that we should wait for the Chamber to provide their
comments.
· Regarding the fence, I agree with Com. Saadati's comments from earlier in the meeting that if
we already allow a gate and that we provide certain restrictions on the gate; whether it is
electronic or not, really doesn't make any difference because the findings or decisions have
already been made based on reasons whether it is seen as security, safety or other reasons. I
don't know why an electronic gate has to be excluded from the fence ordinance.
· I am pleased to see there is an exception process for the Commission or other groups to review
the need for a proposed fence proposed or proposed gate.
· I support the fence ordinance for now, unless further directions are required.
Com. Giefer:
· Regarding the fence ordinance, concur with Vice Chair Miller that we need to do outreach to
the best of our ability to get input from the public on why they want some things that are not
currently in it, and why we should not allow some things that are currently in it.
· Recalled that years ago the City Council debated electronically controlled gates across
driveways; but when they chose not to allow electronically driven fences, it was specifically
because they wanted Cupertino to look like an inclusive community and not an exclusive
Cupertino Planning Connnission
29
August 23, 2005
community. There seems to be a proliferation of illegally constructed electronically fences
and a better way to go about it is to perhaps say "No, you should not be allowed to have a
fence across your vehicular driveway at all" but there are sometimes when you do need them.
· I have not yet as a Planning Commission or DRC member come across an electronic fence
that I thought was rural enough to support. I can imagine that there are places within
Cupertino in the hillsides where one might feel they need it for security purposes, the same
reason as electronic fences. Also, I think that what we want to avoid is 'mansionizing'. We
want to avoid having people within neighborhoods which I saw in Los Angeles, where there
are neighborhoods with tract homes that have walls and electronic gates and it looks so absurd.
If we change the ordinance to make it easier to have an electronic gate, I am a!Taid we are
going to have a proliferation of these things in the flat lands in people's neighborhoods where
it will look outlandish.
· We need to investigate what we would like to have as a community in terms of fence posts,
finials, etc. on top of our fences. We need to set some standards for common sense for use of
fences and such things.
· With regard to signs, we are currently seeing quite a few signs in the DRC; I welcome the
comments from the community and also businesses within the community and understand
better what they do need. Some of the signs we have approved that have been erected, I feel
we made a mistake on them, because they look clunky where we have granted an exception.
· I think it is good to revisit this as a group and determine what is the best sign policy for us
within the city and all agree on it. I think it serves two purposes; it reduces the amount of
exceptions we have to grant if we have more of a homogenized program; it is more continuity
within the community; which makes sense as well.
Chair Wong:
· According to the staff report, the sign ordinance says that one of the goals staff wrote is the
signage; also the Chamber is advocating to have successful advertising for the businesses.
Some drivers don't follow the speed limit and sometimes can't see the signs when passing
them.
Com. Saadati:
· Regarding both items, we need to have some outreach. For the signs, go to the business
communities to those who have signs already, and get their feedback as to the impact of the
sign, the size and how it helps or doesn't help their business; some good or bad examples, and
see how we can come up with a better ordinance.
· Relative to the gate ordinance I think we should not make the distinction between electronic
and regular gates. If there is a gate, then we can allow it based on security or another reason;
if you put a gate there it looks like a gated community. We have to get input !Tom the
community and also get a list of all the gates that have been approved and see how many of
them we have around; and are they serving the purpose. As far as coming up with some
standards which make it more attractive and limitation on the height of post caps, etc. those are
the things we need to focus on. The major thing is just the gate itself. Should we allow it or
not, whether or not it is electronic or not? Hopefully we can get input !Tom community and
modify our ordinance.
Chair Wong:
· Relative to the sign ordinance, the Chamber of Commerce would like to have a successful sign
ordinance that can promote more business in Cupertino; that is really important.
· Customers can find Cupertino businesses; we want them to shop in Cupertino and also bring
sales tax back to us; we need to help Cupertino businesses and we need to do some outreach.
Cupertino Planning Connnission
30
August 23, 2005
· Suggested for outreach that they go back 12 to 18 months to all the sign ordinance exceptions
granted and inform them that the city is considering changes, and solicit input on their
experiences. If they were to change it, what would they want changed, do they want bigger
signs; different colors; how do they like the ordinance? A good resource is people who went
through the process and if we are granting these exceptions anyway, why don't we streamline
the process and have less bureaucracy. It is important to get feedback !Tom those people.
· I talked to one major hotel person in town that went through the sign ordinance and they were
happy with the process; but also they felt that if the process was streamlined, they wanted
more flexibility for more signs.
· One concern is getting entrance signs because many businesses are difficult for customers to
locate and they want the flexibility to have better identification.
· We did review the sign ordinance about a year ago and we allowed some flexibility but I think
we need more flexibility; we need to do better outreach and we are already starting on that
process. The key is successfully advertised business in Cupertino to bring in more sales tax.
· Regarding the fence ordinance, I agree with Com. Giefer that we should avoid
"mansionization" of Cupertino. I believe that it has to be on a case-by-case study to allow an
electronic gate or not; I think that some of the findings staff came up with are very good.
· We need to add safety as a consideration in addition to security and I believe that paragraph is
very good.
· Community needs: the findings that are currently written up don't allow that flexibility and I
believe the community needs the paragraph that allows that flexibility. He concurred with
Com. Giefer that they don't want tract homes to have security gates where they don't have a
legitimate reason for them. Perhaps on flag lots, if the applicant can demonstrate child safety
or something legitimate. The way it is written, we have to grant an exception and the
community is tired of granting exceptions. Mayor Kwok made it clear that he did not want to
grant more exceptions and I believe we need more flexibility in that; safety community
meetings is a start for having discussion on that.
· On Page 7-3, there are current policies that the city of Fremont and Gilroy has a well written
gate policy. Not everything in the city of Fremont or Gilroy will work in Cupertino, but I
think maybe we can borrow some of their ideas and try to implement them.
· I realize that every parcel doesn't need a gated community, but there were some emotional
pleas on St. Lucia Road for a gated community and some neighbors are waiting for us to make
a decision on it. We have to do a review process, have a public hearing and make sure this is
the right thing for us. Staff needs to do the public outreach through the community, the
chamber, through other businesses, through past sign ordinance exceptions, even the fence
ordinance exception. We need to do as much research and come back in two months.
Chair Wong:
· It needs to be advertised for the public to come and have a study session at 5 p.m., one hour
prior to our regular meeting. The next Planning Commission meeting is fully booked.
Ms. Honda:
· Clarified that when we bring this back to you do you want us to provide some specific written
draft language to you at that time, or leave it open and wait for the community.
Chair Wong:
· Said the consensus was that the Planning Commission wanted to hear more input !Tom the
public and businesses.
Cupertino Planning Connnission
31
August 23, 2005
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
· Vice Chair Miller reported that there was an application for 6 units; the applicant was not
present and the application was continued to the next meeting. Chair Wong had recused
himself as his family owns property next door.
HOUSING COMMISSION: No meeting held.
MA YOR'S MONTHLY MEETING WITH COMMISSIONERS:
· Com. Saadati: reported general topics were discussed. Mayor encouraged everyone to be
involved in the October events.
· September 24 is the 50" Jubilee - A combination Wine Festival and Oktoberfest held at the
Community Center.
· The Mayor also mentioned the Hewlett Packard property - developer is looking into reducing
housing and providing 80 BMR units and senior housing.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
· Vice Chair Miller was present for part of the meeting; reported that a review was given by
Mr. Piasecki of the existing and proposed developments in town.
· Chair Wong reported that the committee meets quarterly.
REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: No additional report.
MISC:
Chair Wong:
· Thanked Ms. Wordell for the excellent Power Point presentation on the General Pian
Ms. Wordell:
· Said one of the reasons that the staff asked the City Council to consider a higher housing
number is that some of the current projects in the works could not be accommodated unless the
number was raised in the Vallco area.
· Also Bubb Road, the Planning Commission recommendation was not for any additional units
on Bubb Road and the staff recommendation is to restore it to the original number of 150.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the next Planning Commission meeting
at 6 p.m. September 13, 2005. .
..~~
~. Ellis, Recording Secretary
SUBMITTED BY:
Approved as presented: October 25, 2005