Director's Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesdav, November 22, 2005
The City Council met on Tuesday, November 15, 2005, and discussed the following
items of interest to the Planning Commission: (see attached reports)
1. General Plan Update: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 05-193
certifying that the Environmental Impact Report was complete and was in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Resolution No.
05-194 approving the General Plan Amendments with the following:
o Change the office commercial (non-residential) height in the Bubb Road
area to be 45 feet
o In those areas where there was extra height given based on mixed-use that
it be changed to be extra height given based on a retail component
o The percent for art language be re-instated, and that the numbers
changed to a quarter percent, with a $100,000 cap for any development
that is at least 50,000 square feet.
o Taking 2/3 of the square footage conversions that go for commercial office
and put them into the pot with the one for major employers with
corporate headquarters and sales offices located in Cupertino
o Clarify language for how the city uses the "other" categories in the
neighborhoods versus industrial and commercial
Resolution No. 05-195 approved the General Plan Technical Appendices.
All resolutions were adopted on a 5 - 0 vote.
2. Consider an appeal of Application No. U-2005-04, Gate of Heaven Cemetery
located at 22555 Cristo Rey Dr., APN 342-63-002, regarding the Planning
Commission's approval of a use permit for statuary, Veterans' markers and
landscape features at an existing cemetery. The appellant is Robert Lindberg.
The City Council upheld the appeal with a 3 - 2 vote (Sandoval and Wang voted
no) which allows the vertical markers on approximately 3 acres of the site and
the applicants will submit their landscaping plans to staff for review.
DI(l- I
Report of the Community Development Director
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Page 2
3. Consider Application Nos. U-2005-03, ASA-2005-05, GP A-2005-01, Z-2005-02,
TM-2005-07. TR-2005-06 IEA-2005-03), Eric Morley IMorley Bros. LLC), 19310-
19320 Pruneridge Avenue: The City Council voted 5 - 0 to approve the Use
Permit with the following modifications from staff and additional conditions:
o Relinquish the potential ingress / egress easement
o Reduce the park fee obligation to $601,850 to reflect the increased
BMR requirement
o Require a dedication, improvernent, and maintenance of the public
park
o Keep 6 out of the 9 trees on the front end of the property and
transplant up to 12 trees on Ridgeview Ct.
o Include 26 BMR units equals 20% of the total
o Require $100,000 of public art funding
o Require that the park be not less than one acre
The Architectural and Site Approval application was approved with no changes.
The General Plan Amendrnent with approved to change the rezoning from
P(MP) to P(Res) and to PR for the public park.
The Tentative Map, Tree Removal and Mitigated Negative Declaration were
approved with no changes.
Enclosures:
Staff Reports
Newspaper Articles
G: \Planning \ SteveP \ Director's Report \2005 \pdll- 22-05.doc
t)-¿v
'~"."_."!.\
~.
CITY OF
CUPERJ1NO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO.
AGENDA DATE November 15,2005
SUBTECT:
General Plan update, Application Nos. GP A-2004-0l and EA-2004-17, City of
Cupertino, Citywide.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
}- Adopt a resolution certifying that the Environmental Impact Report is
complete and in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (Resolution 05-193)
}- Adopt a resolution approving the General Plan Amendments
(Resolution 05-194)
}- Adopt a resolution approving the General Plan Technical Appendices
(Resolution 05-195)
BACKGROUND:
The City Council held seven public hearings from July to October on the
proposed amendments to the General Plan. On October 18, the City Council
adopted preliminary positions on the proposed amendments to the Task Force
Draft General Plan (Exhibit A). Final amendments will be considered in light of
the environmental impacts of the proposed amendments. Once the City Council
approves the final amendments, the General Plan will be reforrnatted to include
all the changes.
DISCUSSION
Final Environmental ImpaCt Report
The Final Environmental Impact Report is enclosed, which analyzes the impacts
of the Council's preliminary positions. The conclusion of the report is that the
impacts of the preliminary positions (referred to as the Revised Project
Alternative) are less than significant.
The Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and Fremont Union High School
District (FUHSD)were asked to respond to the Council preliminary positions on
residential development. The CUSD responded the by stating that "the
b-3
General Plan Update
November 15, 2005
Page 2
significant increase in projected units will certainly increased the district's
challenges in providing housing for the potential new students. Even though we
still feel that district-wide we could accommodate the increase, if it were
concentrated heavily in one single school attendance area it would create
additional concerns.... [which might] require special mitigations." The letter
concludes that "the normal city notification and individual project approval
processes would afford the district the opportunity to address these special
needed mitigations as they arise."
The FUSHSD response (Stephen R. Rowley) is enclosed, which states that "1 do
not think that an increase of 268 students spread out over several years will have
a likely negative impact on the general fund... The impact of these students on
capacity, coupled with likely natural demographic growth, is another matter. I
believe we can give you a more accurate, data-based response in February 2006."
Final General Plan
1£ the City Council approves the changes shown in Exhibit A, or modifies Exhibit
A, the Task Force Draftand these changes will constitute the Final General Plan.
This assumes that any additional changes are minor and would not require
additional environmental analysis.
As mentioned above, the approved General Plan will be reformatted. Also, an
implementation plan will be prepared, which will identify the action items in the
plan. The Planning Commission and City Council will prioritize action items
and create a work program frorn the implementation plan.
Technical Appendices
The Technical Appendices, which consist of information that is too detailed for
the General Plan, are adopted separately from the General Plan. They were
provided in the original General Plan binders. The appendices are:
A - Land Use Definitions
B - Housing Element
C - Air Quality
D - Community Noise Fundamentals
E - Geologic and Seismic Hazards
F - Slope Density
Responses to Comments:
A substitute page, 2-40, for the Response to Comments documents, previDusly
provided, is enclosed.
b-£t-
General Plan Update
November 15, 2005
Page 3
Enclosures:
Model Resolutions:
05-193 Certification of Environmental Impact Report
,05-194 General Plan Amendments
05-195 General Plan Technical Appendices
Planning Commission Resolutions:
6306 Certification of Environmental Impact Report
6305 General Plan Amendments
6307 General Plan Technical Appendices
Task Force Draft General Plan - please bring to meeting
Exhibit A - Planning Commission and City Council Recommendations, revised
November 15, 2005
Final ErR (Draft ErR previously provided)
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Responses to Comments - substitute page 2-40
Technical Appendices (previously provided)
School responses:
Cupertino Union School District November 8, 2005
Fremont Union High School District, November 9, 2005 (emailed, signed
version to follow)
Letters from public
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Approved by:
'L1
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
David W. Knapp
City Manager
G:planning/pdreport/cc/CCGPA2004-01 nov 15 2005
b·-5
:~-''---;-l
¡···.I
~,;<~..
LLl,~'
·~I
.....:-.:- . . ,.:.:",~"jf.
CITY OF
CUPERJ]NO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO.
AGENDA DATE November 15, 2005
SUBJECT:
Consider an appeal of Application No. U-200S-04, Gate of Heaven Cemetery, located at
22555 Cristo Rey Drive, APN 342-63-002, regarding the Planning Commission's
approval of a use permit for statuary, Veterans' markers and landscape features at an
existing cemetery. The appellant is Robert Lindberg.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council may take either of the following actions:
1. Uphold the appeal of U-200S-04 and approve (or rnodify) the applicant's
requests;
Or
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission approved the use permit for the Gate of Heaven Cemetery at
its August 23, 2005 meeting. Approval did not include the Gate of Heaven Cemetery's
request for upright markers in two areas of the cemetery, and Planning Commission
review of a detailed landscaping plan was required, rather than review by the Director
of Community Development. The appellant is appealing these two elements of the
approval.
The Gate of Heaven Cemetery consists of 56 acres. The property was annexed into the
City of Cupertino in 1986. The cemetery has been operating under a Santa Clara
County use permit approved in 1962 (Exhibit A). Condition 5 of the use permit
required flat horizontal markers, with statuary and shrines to be approved by the
Planning Commission through Architectural and Site approval. Since the property was
annexed, Cupertino has processed Architectural and Approval for additional statuary
and buildings through the Cupertino Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission held two public hearings on the use permit, June 14 and
August 23, 2005. The fundamental concerns raised by the adjacent conununity were the
visual impacts of the proposed changes and the change of character of the cemetery.
Veterans' representatives expressed their support for the veterans' markers. Due to the
b·-lD
U-2005-04
Page 2
extensive public interest in the application, the Planning Commission requested that the
applicant provide more public interchange and achieve greater resolution of the issues.
The Gate of Heaven representatives and interested community members met several
times after the first Planning Commission hearing. When the application was heard on
August 23, the following changes were made to the use permit request:
» Veterans' Markers: Move veterans' markers and niches further away from the
property line and extend perimeter screening
» Crucifix: Relocate the crucifix adjacent to the lake, reduce height to 28 feet and
construct the crucifix of redwood materials instead of bronze, as originally
proposed
>- Smaller Statues: Locate two smaller statues, 8 feet and 12 feet tall, respectively, in
the Bishops plot
>- Upright Marker Areas: Reduce the number of upright markers from 4,393 to
2,500, and relocate and redesign the upright marker areas so that they are less
visible
>- Buffer zone: create a buffer zone between the residential property and the
cemetery. In addition, the applicant planted trees to mitigate the sight line of the
corporation yard, at the request of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District.
Although the upright marker areas were modified, they were not supported by the Oak
Valley resident group.
The applicant's letters state the reasons for the appeal (in summary):
>- Many mernbers of the public feel the need for upright markers (see attached
petition with 68 signatures)
>- Sight lines for upright markers have been minimized, and the revised design
reduces visual impacts
>- Imposition ofa public hearing for the landscape plan is unnecessary,
burdensome and unfair.
As reported in the Planning Commission minutes of August 23, Planning
Commissioners' primary reasons for not approving the upright markers include:
» The cemetery's original right to develop included the prohibition of upright
markers
» Potential views from additional trials and additional homes on the Hansen
Quarry site
);> Current visitors enjoy the flat markers
1)-1
~
~
CITY OF
CLJPEIQ1NO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(40S) 777-330S
Fax: (40S) 777-3333
Cornnmnity Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No._
Agenda Date: November 15,2005
Application: GP A-2005-01, Z-200S-02, U-200S-03, TM-200S-07, ASA-200S-0S,
TR-200S-06, EA-200S-03
Applicant (s): Morley Brothers, LLC/Sobrato Development Companies
Property Owner: Sobrato Development Companies
Property Location: 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue
Recornrnendations:
The Planning Commission, on a 5-0 vote, recommends denial of the following:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration (File no. EA-200S-03)
2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (File no. GP A-200S-0l) per the model resolution.
3. REZONING (File no. Z-200S-02) per the rnodel resolution.
Rezone from P(MP) to P(RES) and PR.
4. USE PERMIT (File no. U-200S-03) per the model resolution.
S. TENTATIVE MAP (File no. TM-200S-07) per the model resolution.
6. ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL (File No. ASA-200S-0S) per the model
resolution.
7. TREE REMOVAL (File no. TR-200S-06) per the model resolution.
b-4
Applications: GP A-2005-01, Z-2005-02, U-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-2005-05, TR-2005-06, EA-2005-03
November 15, 2005
Page 2
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Existing Zoning Designation:
Proposed Zoning Designation:
Net Site Area:
Gross Site Area:
Existing Land Use:
Building Sq. Ft. (to be demolished):
Proposed Land Uses:
Proposed Net Residential Density:
Proposed Net Residential Density
(excluding 0.937 acre park):
Proposed Gross Residential Density:
Proposed Gross Residential Density
(excluding 0.937-acre park):
Dwelling Unit Summary:
Industrial/Residential
P(MP) - Planned Industrial Park Zone
P(RES) - Planned Residential Zone
8.5 acres
8.96 acres
Office / Industrial
126,528 square feet (two buildings)
Residential (130 dwelling units) & Public Park
130/8.5 = 15.29 dwellings/net acre
130/7.56= 17.20 dwellings/net acre
130/8.96 = 14.51 dwellings/ gross acre
130/8.02 = 16.21 dwellings/ gross acre
Plan # of # of Beds # of Unit Sq. Ft. Unit Type Garage
Units Baths Tvpe
Plan 1 13 2 2 1,188 Flat Tandem
Plan 2 13 2 2.5 1,629 Flat Conventional
(HC)
PlanlA 27 2 2 1,397 Flat Tandem
Plan 2A 27 2 2 1,452 Flat Conventional
Plan 3 11 3 2.5 1,486 Townhome Conventional
Plan 4 24 3 2.5 1,532 Townhome Conventional
Plan 5 15 3 3 1,680 Townhome Conventional
Total 130
Units
Parking:
Parking Required (Townhouse): 364 stalls (2.8 per DU x 130 DU)
Parking Supplied-- Garage: 260 stalls (includes 80 tandem spaces)
Open (HC): 5 stalls
Open lother): 110 stalls
Total: 375 staJls
Application Summary:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (File no. GPA-200S-01) to allocate 130 residential
units for a proposed townhome and condominium development
\)-10
Applications: GP A-2005-0l, Z-2005-02, U-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-2005-05, TR-2005-06, EA-2005-03
November 15, 2005
Page 3
REZONING (File no. Z-200S-02) of an 8.96-gross acre site from Planned Industrial Park
Zone P(MP) to Planned Residential Zone P(RES)
USE PERMIT (File no. U-200S-03) to demolish two office buildings totaling
approximately 126,528 square feet and construct a 130-unit townhome and
condominium development with about a one acre public park, and allow tandem
parking garages for a portion of the units
TENTATIVE MAP (File no. TM-200S-07) to subdivide an 8.5 net acre property into 31
lots for a 130-unit townhome and condominium development
ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL (File No. ASA-200S-0S) for the design of a 130-
unit townhome and condominium development
TREE REMOVAL (File no. TR-200S-06) and replacement of 90+ trees for a 130-unit
townhome and condominium development
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration
recommended. The project will have no significant, adverse environmental impacts.
Background:
On October 11th the Planning Commission reviewed applications to allow the
demolition of two office buildings totaling approximately 126,528 square feet, and
construct a 130-unit townhorne and condominiurn development with about a one acre
public park at 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue (Exhibit A-I).
The Commission was supportive of the site layout and design of the residential
development, but the project required a general plan amendment to allocate 130
residential units to this development. While the Planning Commission recommended
additional residential development allocations in the North Vallco Area during its
General Plan hearings, the Commission did not want to presume the intent of th~ City
Council during the Council's deliberations on the General Plan by taking a project-
related general plan amendment action.
The Commission asked the applicant if he would accept a continuance of his project
until after the City Council adopted an updated General Plan, but the applicant elected
to accept a denial from the Commission in order to keep his project progressing
forward to a City Council hearing date.
Other than future general plan policy, the only other major concerns not addressed in
the Commission staff report were:
1)-11
Applications: GP A-2005-0l, Z-2005-02, U-2005-03, TM-2005-07, ASA-2005-05, TR-2005-06, EA-2005-03
~overnberI5,2005
Page 4
1. The location of the public park. One Commissioner felt the park should be moved
from Pruneridge Avenue to the rear of the property near Highway 280. The idea was to
provide additional buffering distance between the highway noise and the residential
units.
2. The lack of a written agency response on the project from the Cupertino Union
School District (CUSD) and the Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD). The
Commission was also concerned with the cumulative student emoJlmentjfiscal impacts
of the proposed V allco~area residential projects on the school districts. Staff has
received a verbal reply from CUSD that the Town Hall Services-prepared emoJlment
and fiscal impact analysis fairly represents the impacts on CUSD. Past responses from
CUSD representatives indicate that due to the nature of their state funding (per
pupil), CUSD could accommodate the additional students generated by new residential
development. Staff is still working on a response from FUHSD. Stephen Sanger from
Town Hall Services will be attending the public hearing to present information on the
cumulative impacts on schools from Vallco residential development.
The Commission's resolutions of denial are attached to the October 11 th staff report.
Staff had recommended approval of the project.
Enclosures:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6328 for U-200S-03
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6329 for ASA-200S-0S
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6330 for GP A-200S-01
Plarming Commission Resolution No. 6331 for Z-200S-02
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6332 for TM-200S-07
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6333 for TR-200S-06
Exhibit A-I: Planning Commission staff report dated 10/11/05, including the Initial
Study, Negative Declaration, ERC recommendation
Exhibit B-1: Letters and email messages in support and opposition to the project
Exhibit C-1: Air Quality Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin dated 10/4/05
and presented at the October 11, 2005 Commission hearing
prepare'7tY(G(')1~1 Jung, City Planner
sUbmiJ¿ bY:)
~ ~ --
. . . I '
.-} &, / ,...,...-. .'V(.J---"\._~
Ste;;tPiasecki'·\"-
Director, Community Development
G:\planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ GP A-200S-0l cc.doc
D-Ió0
m
(~
CITY OF
CUPEI\IINO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No._
Agenda Date: November 15, 2005
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR
Application: GP A-200S-01, Z-200S-02, U-200S-03, TM-200S-07, ASA-200S-0S,
TR-200S-06, EA-200S-03
Applicant (s): Morley Brothers, LLCjSobrato Development Companies
Property Owner: Sobrato Development Companies
Property Location: 19310 -19320 Pruneridge Avenue.
A supplernental report has been prepared for this project to present late-arriving
relevant information and to address a Council member's request for additional
information.
Staff Report
A question was raised about the format of the previously submitted City Council
report and the location of the project information and staff analysis. The report
follows the traditional format staff has used for projects reviewed by the
Planning· Commission and City Council. Briefly, the report headings are as
follows with additional explanatory information included:
1) Main application information-- (file numbers, applicant names, property
owner, property address/location.
2) Recommendations-- Staff reports the Planning Commission
recommendations with the vote. 1£ the staff recommendation differs from
the Commission, this is usually reported in the Background Section.
3) Proiect Data-Project site information of interest to decisionmakers
4) Application Summary-Specific actions requested by the applicant to
entitle the development of his project
5) Background - A general summary of the Planning Commission hearing.
Historical project-related information is provided in the Planning
Commission staff report attached to the Council report.
D'\~
Background information on planning issues and staff recommendations were
located in the back of the report because of the complexity of the project and the
seven separate applications required to entitle the project. To highlight the
planning issues and staff recommendations, they are repeated below and
expanded upon in the attached Planning Commission staff report.
The Commissioners were supportive of the design and site layout of the
Pruneridge residential development proposal, but there were larger, unresolved
General Plan policy issues having to do with additional residential development
in Vallco and the conversion of office/ industrial land to residential use that had
not be decided on by the City Council through the General Plan update. Rather
than assume what actions the Council may take on the General Plan, the
Commission asked the applicant to take a continuance until after the General
Plan adoption. The applicant elected to accept negative recommendations from
the Commission in order to move his project forward for Council consideration.
Staff had recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission.
The draft approval resolutions with the conditions of approval are attached to
previously submitted Council staff report.
Other Information
Additional information is attached that was missing or arrived after the initial
Council report was prepared.
· Mitigated Negative Declaration
· DRAFT Planning Commission meeting minutes dated October 11, 2005
· Letter from the Cupertino Union School District dated November 11, 2005
· Letter from the Fremont Union High School District dated October 21,
2005
Both school districts reviewed the project plans and enrollment and fiscal
analysis of the project. Both agencies concur with the analysis and can
accommodate the new students generated by the project.
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
(;' ,/ / *
' . f / "/<'., ..·...·7 .(N
, 'L.tCð'( eke ,-,C.'
Enclosures:
Planning Commission Staff Report dated 10(11(05
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes dated October 11, 2005
Letter from the Cupertino Union School Disb:ict dated November 11, 2005
Letter from the Fremont Union High School Disb:ict dated October 21, 2005
G:\Plamung\PDREPORT\ CC\ GP A-2005-01 cc supplement.doc
\) - \tt
r"lI..L;:J, page 15
...."'''' 1./11.:.
ws
Mghts reserved. An ediIiooof\lle PaIoAllO OaiIyNews
Volume 4, Number 160
DAILY
Cupertino, Saratoga and Monte Sereno
C 2005 KrVgrrt. RiŒter Commun~ Newspapers, Inc. All
COMBINED DAILY NEWS CIRCUlATION: 67,808
GATOS
~
~Los
November 17, 2005
Happily serving Campbel
r<.A.."!!AQ: 2,187.93 +1:19 . ·NYSE: 10,674.76 -11.68 (408) 264-1101
-
place to bury her niece, they were sur-
prised to learn vertical markers were
banned in some areas. She indicated a
preference for upiight tombstones was
part of Asian American culture.
Lindberg said in his experience,
many Asian Americans preferred verti-
cal markers. But Wang said her family
still chose to bury her niece at the ceme-
tery, because of its beauty.
Mayor Patrick Kwok said he did not
want Cupertino to send out a negative
message, such as, "If you want uptight
markers, we do not want you to bury in
Cupertino."
FROM PAGE :I.
CEMETERY
Cemetery wins
vote for upright
grave markers
BY MICHELLE MAGHRIBI
DAilY NEWS STAFF WRITER
ing that there would never
markers allowed.
"It is a beautiful environment, a place
where my three-year-old feels comfort-
able, it was my understanding that there
would only be flat markers allowed,"
Ng said.
Appellant Robert Lindberg bighlight-
ed many requests from clients wishing
to bury their loved ones with vertical
grave markers.
vertical
be
in oppositIon. Council member San-
doval opposed the upright markers, say-
ing she had not been convinced of the
need for the change from horizontal.
"If a client's first priority is vertical,
then there are other cemeteries where
that can be taken care of,'" Sandoval
said.
The Gate of Heaven Cemetery has won an appeal to the
City Council to have upright gràÝe markers and statuary in
their Veterans memorial.
A previous decision by the city's Planning Commission
Aug. 23 would have forced the cemetery to use only hOlizon-
tal grave markers. Critics cited the cemetery's original rights
to development which included a prohibition on upright mark-
Asian American preferance
Council member Kris Wang said
when her family was searching for a
Opposition
Residents opposing the upright head-
stones cited aesthetics.
Resident Lori Ng, who buried an
infant at Gate of Heaven Cemetery, said
she bought the plot with the understand-
ers.
Views of the cemetery by the neighbors, and claims that
visitors approved of the flat markers, also played a role in the
Planning Commission's decision.
The cemetery is located at 22555 Cristo Rey Drive in
Cupertino.
. The council voted 3-2 on Tuesday during a regular meeting,
with council members Dolly Sandoval and Kris Wang voting
See CEMETERY, page 16
tJ
\
-
\J\