The URL can be used to link to this page

20.Petition for Reconsideration City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CTYO CUPEI\TINO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No.20 Agenda Date: Tanuarv 17, 2006 SUBJECT Request for a Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision approving a use permit for statuary, Veterans' markers and landscape features a the existing Gate of Heaven Cemetery located at 22555 Cristo Rey Drive. The petitioners are Oak Val1ey Community Awareness and Keith Hocker. Note: The Petitioners' request for reconsideration relates to the upright markers. RECOMMENDATION The City Council can take either of the fol1owing actions: 1) Grant the request for reconsideration by making required findings outlined by the City Attorney (reconsideration could either be heard at this or a future meeting) Or 2) Deny the request reconsideration by making required findings outlined by the City Attorney. Environmental Assessment: Categorical1y Exempt BACKGROUND: The Gate of Heaven Cemetery applied to the City of Cupertino for a use permit for changes to the cemetery because they were operating under a Santa Clara County use permit. The cemetery was annexed into the City of Cupertino in 1986, and had been operating under a Santa Clara County use permit approved in 1962. 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. The Gate of Heaven Cemetery requested upright markers, resulting in the need to apply for a use permit through the City since the request is in conflict with the original use permit. The use permit included other changes to the cemetery, as wel1: veterans' markers and 20-1 U-200S-04 Page 2 Gate of Heaven Cemetery Reconsideration January 17,2006 niche features; a new niche feature; life-size statue of the Pieta; bishop's plaza and statuary; ¡md 36 existing upright markers, The Planning Commission held two public hearings on the request. There was significant public interest in the application, and the Planning Commission requested that the applicant meet with interested residents and groups to work through their concerns. As a result, there was mutual agreement on the cemetery proposal at the second public hearing, except for the request for upright markers. The cemetery modified the upright marker request, which reduced the number of markers requested and created a terraced design with the intent to reduce the visual impact of the markers. However, the neighborhood group and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District were still opposed to the upright markers. The Planning Commission approved the cemetery use permit on August 23, 2005, except for the upright markers. They also required that a detailed landscape plan be approved by the Planning Commission. The Gate of Heaven Cemetery appealed the decision to the City Council because of the denial of the upright markers and the requirement for Planning Commission approval of the landscape plan. On November 15, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal and granted the appeal, allowing upright markers and staff review of the landscaping plan. The approved plan and conditions of approval are enclosed (Exhibit C). DISCUSSION: Applicants' Appeal: Specific grounds for reconsideration are provided in the Cupertino Municipal Code. The appellants' reasons for the reconsideration request are outlined in the appeal letters attached to the staff report (Exhibit D). The grounds for reconsideration are discussed in the attached matrix, Exhibit B, as prepared by the City Attorney. The City Attorney recommends that the City Council deny the request for reconsideration, for the reasons stated in Exhibit B. A resolution for denial is enclosed (Exhibit A). ENCLOSURES Exhibit A: City Council Resolution Exhibit B: City Council Findings in Response to Petition for Reconsideration Exhibit C: City Council Staff Report (w / attachments), November 15, 2005 Exhibit D: Petition of Reconsideration Exhibit E: City Council Meeting Minutes, November 15, 2005 Exhibit F: Letter from Gate of Heaven Cemetery attorney, January 9, 2006 Exhibit G: Declaration of Councilmember Patrick Kwok Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner 20-2 U-2005-04 Page 3 Gate of Heaven Cemetery Reconsideration January 17, 2006 Submitted by: Approved by: c5ú~ ~c~ÄJ Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ CC\ U-2005-04reconsideration.doc --, 20'~ EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITIONS OF KEITH HOCKER AND OVCA REPRESENT A TNES JIM WHEELER AND MARK EDWARDS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITS APPROVAL OF THE APPEAL OF APPLICATION U-2005-04 BY ROBERT LINDBERG ON BEHALF OF GATE OF HEAVEN CATHOLIC CEMETARY REGARDING UPRIGHT MARKERS AND THE CEMETERY LANDSCAPE PLAN. Whereas, the Gate of Heaven Cemetery in the City of Cupertino owned by the Catholic diocese applied for a use permit to include several new features including upright markers; and Whereas, application U-200S-04 was brought before the planning commission by Robert Lindberg and upright markers were denied on January 25, 2005; and Whereas, the Planning Commission also requested review of the cemetery landscape plan; and Whereas, that denial and review was appealed to the City Council on November 15, 2005 by Robert Lindberg; and Whereas, the City Council, after hearing testimony, reversed the Planning Commission and upheld the appeal; and Whereas, Keith Hocker and OVCA representatives Jim Wheeler and Mark Edwards petitioned the City Council for reconsideration of its decision under the provisions of section 2.08.096 of the City's ordinance code; and Whereas, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the January 17, 2006, reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The petitioners' Reconsideration Petitions are defective in that they do not offer proof of facts as required by Municipal Code section 2.08.096. 2. The petitioners have made no offer of new relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(l).) 3. The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the petitioners at any prior city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(2).) 4. The City Council has proceeded entirely within its jurisdiction regarding the application for a use permit. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(3).) 2-0-f 5. The petitioners have failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(4).) I 6. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its disbretion regarding the application for a use permit. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(5).) Specifically, the City Council determines that: a. The. City Council proceeded in a manner required by law. b. The City Council's decision is supported by findings offact. c. The findings offact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 7. The specific allegations contained in the petitions for reconsideration are refuted by specific City Council findings, which are attached to this resolution and incorporated herein. 8. The petitioners' Petitions for Reconsideration of the City Council's determination of November 15, 2005 is DENIED PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this _ day of , 2006, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 20--~ Exhibit B CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 19.124.070 a conditional use permit may . be granted where the decisionmaker makes the following findings: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. In granting the appeal of Robert Lindberg on behalf of Gate of Heaven Cemetery, the City Council found: a. that the use was in accord with the Cupertino General Plan Land Use Map; and, b. that use of upright markers relocated away from the residential and open space areas, while visible from some areas and less so from others, can be mitigated with additional landscape screening. With this proposed mitigation, the upright markers will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states: "A petition for reconsideration shall specify, in detail, each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for consideration, precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City the City Council abused its discretion by: a. Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and/or b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. " Two petitions for reconsideration of the appeal of Application No. U-2005-04, Gate of Heaven Cemetery, 22555 Cristo Rey Drive, Cupertino were submitted. One was submitted by Keith Hocker offering "proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing." Mr. Hocker's assertions are addressed under item #2. below. The other petition was submitted by Oak Valley Community Awareness representatives Jim Wheeler and Mark Edwards and asserts as follows: 1. An offer of new relevant evidence, which in the exercise of reasonable diligence, conld not have been produced at any earlier city hearing: 1 20-{P Response: The appellants have failed to provide new relevant evidence of tny kind that was not considered at the appeal hearing. f i OVCA PETITION FINDING 1. The amount of inscription Council member James' comment regarding the size of possible on horizontal her husband's veteran marker is irrelevant. Several markers was incorrectly people, including several Asians, spoke to the adequacy stated as being limited in or inadequacy of horizontal markers. The Council did not comparison to upright make a determination based on whether an upright markers. marker allows for more text than a horizontal marker, since the size of horizontal markers is discretionary. 2. The Cemetery failed to A suryey of their client community is not a requirement, survey their client although one may have been requested by the Planning community, yet improperly Commission. Evidence of several informal suryeys was stated and represented that presented at the hearing. they had, thus the decision was made on faulty information and the true facts could not be presented. 2. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. Response: The petitioners have not provided any proof of facts required as grounds for reconsideration to demonstrate that the Council failed to provide a fair hearing. In fact, a review of the hearing shows that the Council heard lengthy testimony from the appellants and from the petitioners as well as numerous facts presented by the city staff and the public. OVCA PETITION FINDING 1. The facts to be provided by Three speakers voluntarily gave their 2-minute speaking the presenters opposing time to Jim Wheeler. "Mr.. Wheeler was not identified upright markers could not be to me by either staff or by himself as an authorized heard, because the Council representative of any opposition group and therefore was improperly and arbitrarily entitled to speak for only two minutes.. .. At no time did denied their right to speak. he inform me that he was the authorized representative ofOVCA or any other opposition group." Declaration of Patrick Kwok, pg. 2. ~ 8-9. 2 ZO--l 2. The process was managed in a manner that was unfair to those opposing upright markers, and slanted in favor of the Appellant and their supporters. ......................... a. From the outset, the Mayor led the Appellant's presentation on upright markers, and through the positive question and answer process, leading the appellant's testimony, indicated his support for upright markers. b. Mayor Kwok also allowed the proceedings to deteriorate to the point that there was applause after individuals spoke in the public hearing. c. He also failed to interrupt speakers who spoke on the Veterans' Memorial issue, even though participants were told at the start ofthe public hearing that the Veterans' Memorial issue was previously resolved and participants must confine their comments to the two issues -- up~ght markers and landscape revIew. d. Mayor Kwok was inconsistent in cutting off speakers at 2 minutes during the public hearing. Some opposition speakers were cut off promptly at 2 minutes, yet speakers in favor were not. a. This is based on opinion only. The mayor asked the appellant many questions, as did the other council members. The Mayor may not have asked the questions the OVCA representatives would have asked or liked him to ask. It is questionable whether his questions "indicated his support for upright markers." Petitioner makes no offer of proof of bias in favor of upright markers. b. This is irrelevant. The audience frequently responds to speakers whether it is allowed or not. In this case, the audience responded to comments made by both proponents and opponents. The applause did not contribute to an "unfair hearing." c. This is irrelevant. The mayor is under no obligation to interrupt speakers who get off point. d. With the exception of the monsignor, who spoke for 3:04, this allegation is untrue. Speakers who spoke longer than two minutes were asked to conclude their statements. 3 2.0- E:> e. Not all opposition speakers were allowed to speak; 3 speakers were denied the right to speak and the opposition was thus denied due process and their right to be heard. f. The Council did not consider or discuss the reasoning used in the decision by the Planning Commission, even though some of the same concerns voiced by the Planning Commissioners were presented during the public hearing. g. During the Council discussion ofthe upright markers issue, the Mayor spoke in an animated and loud manner, speaking over the orderly opposition speakers and quashing the opposing views of the dissenting Council members. h. Council Member Sandra James said she "would not even consider" a reduction of the number of upright markers, demonstrating inadequate consideration of the opposition's position. i. The Mayor allowed a "rush to judgment" summarily overruling a 5-0, well- researched and well-reasoned Planning Commission decision. e. Three speakers voluntarily gave their 2-minute speaking time to Jim Wheeler. They were not obligated to do so. f. Petitioner makes no offer of facts to support the allegation. While Council may not have discussed the Planning Commission decision, they received and considered all of the relevant information before making their decision. g. This is based on opinion only. After the close of the public hearing each council member openly discussed his or her opinion of the evidence received. There is no restriction on their individual presentation regarding their animation or tone of voice. h. This is based on opinion only. A reduction in the number of upright markers was not a subject of the appeal. Refusal to consider it as an option does not necessarily demonstrate "inadequate consideration of opposition's position." Petitioner makes no offer of facts to support the allegation. i. This is based on opinion. Petitioner makes no offer of facts to support the allegation. Some might say that 2 hours and 27 minutes of testimony and deliberation would not be considered a "rush to judgment." 4 2..0-01 f- Over half the presentation This is irrelevant. The landscape review issue was part ~y the appellant, and over half of the appeal and needed to be discussed. he discussion by the City Council, was focused on the landscape review issue. 4. As a client of the Petitioner offers no facts to support an allegation of bias Cemetery, Council Member or unfair hearing. In this case, Ms. James' opinion of Sandra James actively spoke the previously approved housing development is against the housing irrelevant. development that she personally approved as a member of the City Council in 1998. 5. The Visual Projection a. The OVCA representative was not identified as such System was not working for at the time of the meeting; the OVCA spokes-person b. The failure of audio-visual equipment does not opposing the upright markers, constitute an "unfair" hearing. Information was preventing communication of adequately transmitted verbally to the City Council. relevant facts on the matter to the City Council and the Community. HOCKER FINDINGS PETITION 1. Patrick Kwok has a clear Prior to the meeting Patrick Kwok conferred with the conflict of interest in this City Attorney regarding his volunteer work for his matter and should have church, St. Josephs in Cupertino. Declaration of Patrick removed himself from the Kwok. pg. 3, ~13. vote. Patrick Kwok has "no financial interest in the Gates of Heaven Cemetery or its owner the Diocese of San Jose and own(s) no burial plot at the site." Mr. Kwok sits on the financial committee of the local parish, which has no financial connection with the operation of the cemetery. Declaration of Patrick Kwok. pg. 2, ~ 12. 5 2.0-10 2"Comments by Sandra J ~mes regarding the regarding th~ Oak Valley Neighborhood make "her biased in this case and demonstrate. . . that her judgment and reasoning in the case [is] susDect." This statement is based on petitioner's opinion only. The petitioner fails to support his opinion with concrete facts necessary for a showing of bias. The Council heard and considered everything presented. There is no basis in any material provided in the petitions that supports the allegation that the Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 3. Proof of Facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or b. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Response: The petition under this heading presents unsubstantiated statement about the Council's consideration at the appeal hearing. The petition makes no offer of proof. OVCA PETITION FINDING 1. The Council did not respond to, review Petitioner makes no offer of facts to or discuss the rationale, reasoning or facts support the allegation. While Council may behind the 5-0 decision of the Planning not have discussed the Planning Commission denying upright markers. Commission decision, they received and considered all ofthe relevant information before making their decision. Contrary to the Cemetery's representations The Council had the correct information on and statements that the upright markers are the visibility impacts. Information was not visible from anywhere outside the provided In the staff report and was Cemetery, the proposed gravestones are visually shown by a speaker. The Council visible from multiple locations, and there is found, per the staff report, that use of a definite negative visual impact to the upright markers relocated away from the neighbors and Open Space users. residential and open space areas, while visible from some areas and less so from others, can be mitigated with additional landscape screening. Petitioners offer no facts to substantiate their claim that the City Council abused its discretion by not proceeding in a manner prescribed by law; and/or rendering a decision 6 ZO-ll which was not supported by findings of fact and/or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Conclusion In reviewing the Petitions filed by-Keith Hocker and by Oak Valley Community Awareness representatives Jim Wheeler and Mark Edwards to Reconsider the Council's decision to grant the Appeal of Robert Lindberg on November 15, 2005 as noted in detail above, the City Council finds that there is no relevant evidence or proof of facts that support any of the grounds for reconsideration as required by Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 B. 1-5. 7 '20-\2.. EXHIBIT C 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CIty OF I CUPHQ1NO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. AGENDA DATE November 15. 2005 SUBJECT: Consider an appeal of Application No. U-2005-04, 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-2005-04 and approve (or modify) 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 community 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 Printed on Recycled Paper w- \~ 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 df 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 members 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 of a 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 20-14 U-2005-04 Page 3 Enclosures: Planning COJ¡I11Ilission Resolution 6314 and approved plan set Planning Commission Staff Report, Minutes and Relevant Exhibits, June 14 and August 23,2005 Letters, Petitions and Photographs from Applicant, September 7, 2005 and November 8, 2005 Letter from Oak Valley Community Awareness, November 7, 2005 Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Approved by: - sÞL David W. Knapp City Manager Ste e Piasec i Director of Community Development G:planning/ pdreport/ appealsjU-2005-04 lQ-\5 U-2005-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6314 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR STATUARY, VETERANS' MARKERS AND LANDSCAPE FEATURES AT AN EXISTING CEMETERY LOCATED AT 22555 CRISTO REY DRIVE. SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s): Applicant: Location: U-2005-04 Robert Lindberg (Gate of Heaven Cemetery) 22555 Cristo Rey Drive SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and 2O-lLo Resolution No. 6314 Page 2 U-2005-04 August 23, 2005 That the subconclJ,sions upon which the findings concerning Application No(s). U-2005-04, as set forth in the !Minutes of the and conditions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record Planning Commission Meeting of August 23, 2005, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set entitled, "Gate of Heaven Cemetery, 22555 Cristo Rey Drive" dated 8/10/05, 2005 consisting of 4 pages, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this resolution. 2. APPROVED SITE PLAN Cemetery expansion with horizontal markers is allowed in areas not identified on the approved site plan, except for the designated buffer area. The approved site plan does not include any element described as "future," i.e., future mausoleum or future niche/ art features. 3. MARKERS AND STATUARY The cemetery has been developed as a Memorial Park with flat, horizontal markers. Any new markers shall be horizontal consistent with the original use permit. The existing 36 vertical markers are allQwed to remain. Statuary or changes deemed minor shall be approved by the Design Review Committee or as a Director's Minor Modification, as determined by the Director of Community Development 4. LANDSCAPE PLAN A detailed landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to implementation of the use permit, with the exception of the Veterans' memorial, which can be installed with landscaping subject to the Director of Community Development. The detailed landscape plan shall include landscaping for the new niche feature and trellis in the veterans' section. 5. TREE HEIGHT Annual topping of the trees between the residential area on the east property line and the cemetery shall be performed to retain the residents' view of the mountains. Tree height shall be maintained at 7 feet above the fence in the Veterans Plaza area and 4 feet above the fence in other areas. '2.0 -t [ Resolution No. 6314 Page 3 U-2005-04 August 23, 2005 6. BUFFER AREA A buffer area shall be established along the east property line between the residential parcels and the cemetery. There shall be no development activity within 22 feet of the property line, and no above ground activity within 35 feet of the property line. 7. ACCESS Access to the cemetery for funeral processions and visitors shall be from Cristo Rey Drive, and not from any other local street extending through residential areas. 8. RECORDATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval for the project shall be recorded prior to implementation of the use permit in order to provide knowledge of the limitations of the site for future development plans. 9. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of August 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chen; Giefer; Vice-Chair Miller, Saadati and Chairperson Wong COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: AYES: A TIEST: APPROVED: /s/ Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development / s / Gilbert Wong Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G: \ Planning \ PDREPORTI RES \ U-200S-04 res.doc 20 -l ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenul(, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OI1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application Summary: Application: U-2005-04 Applicant: Robert Lindberg (Gate of Heaven Cemetery) Location: 22555 Cristo Rey Drive Use Permit to allow vertical markers and statuary at an existing cemetery RECOMMENDATION: Staff recorrunends approval of: Use Permit U-2005-04 according to the model resolution BACKGROUND: 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. The Planning Commission held an introductory public hearing on this item on June 14, 2005. The fundamental concerns raised by the adjacent community were the visual impacts of the proposed changes and the change of character of the cemetery. Due to the extensive public interest in the application, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant provide more public and achieve greater resolution of the issues. Cemetery representatives have spoken or met numerous times with representatives of the Oak Valley neighborhood, Veterans groups and with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District staff. The outcome of those meetings is discussed below. DISCUSSION: Proposed changes Robert Lindberg's and the Oak Valley Community Awarenes letters describe the meetings and communications among the cemetery, neighbors and veterans since the June 14 meeting. All participants are to be commended for their commitment and dedication to resolving issues. As described in the neighbors' letter, consensus was reached on all proposed changes except the new upright markers. 20 - lq U-2005-04 Page 2 The proposed changes are shown in the plan set and are described in Exhibit B. In summary, they are: ~ Move vetera~' markers and niches further away from the property line and extend perimeter screening ~ Relocate the crucifix adjacent to the lake, reduce height to 28 feet and use redwood materials ~ Locate two smaller statues, 8 feet and 12 feet tall, respectively, in the Bishops plot. ~ Relocate and redesign the upright marker areas so that they are less visible A buffer zone between the residential property and the cemetery has also been agreed to. 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. Principles for Discussion At the introductory meeting, staff recommended that the Commission focus on the degree of change that can be reasonably accommodated without severely compromising the interests of the applicant, neighbors and visitors to the cemetery. Staff recommended that the Commission focus on following questions in considering this application: 1) To what degree does the application and landscape screening alter the low profile character of the cemetery as viewed from the public trails, streets and neighboring homes? With the proposed changes, the application does not change the low profile character of the cemetery as viewed from these vantage points. A detailed landscape plan is recommended as a condition of approval that will further screen the new and existing upright marker areas. 2) Can the upright markers and statuary be reasonably hidden from view through their strategic placement and landscape screening? Two proposed upright marker areas have been relocated away from the residential and open space areas. The markers will be placed against flagstone retaining walls, which will be terraced to follow the contours of the ground. In addition, the neighborhood group and the cemetery agreed to establish a buffer area between the residential area on the east property line and future cemetery development. The letter and petitions from the Oak Valley Community Awareness group and the letter from the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District state their opposition to the new upright markers. While these areas are not visible from 20 - 20 U-2005-04 Page 3 the residential or open space areas, concerns are raised about the general character of the cemetery and creating a precedent for future upright marker areas. Staff believes that community and public interests have been met by the relocation and redesign of the upright marker areas. If future upright marker areas are proposed, they will be reviewed through the public hearing process. 3) Dothe application and landscape screening umeasonably obstruct views of surrounding open space across the cemetery lands from adjacent public trails, streets and neighboring homes? A neighborhood issue is the height of the trees between the residences on the east property line and the cemetery. A row of oleanders along the fence was removed, and taller trees are proposed. The Oak Valley Community Awareness group requests that tree height be maintained at the same height as the oleanders to retain views of the hillsides. A condition of approval is included to that effect. Enclosures: Model Resolution Exhibit A - Cemetery's Santa Clara County Use Permit Exhibit B - Matrix of use permit proposal Exhibit C - Cemetery letter and petition Exhibit D - Oak Valley Community Awareness letter and petitions Exhibit E - Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District letter Exhibit F - County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department letter Exhibit G - Staff report and minutes from June 14, 2005 Planning Commission meeting Additional public input Revised Plan Set Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development G:planning/ pdreport/ pc/ U-20Q5-04-2 20-21 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 August 23, 2005 POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: U-2005-01, Z-200~-01, SA-2005-02, TM-2005-01, -2005-01, Alan Lovl (Taylor Woodro Homes) Bubb Road & I erial Ave. 2. M-2005-03, Terry Brown (Saeed F. Ghazvini) 10075 Pasadena Ave. 3. U-2005-11, ASA-2005-07 Thomas Harrington 22350-82 Homestea Use permit to demolish 175,000 square feet industrial buildings and construct 94 single- fam' residential units and recreation areas. Rezon' g of a 12-acre site from Planned Industrial-P( to Planned Residential P(Residential). and Site Approval for 94 single- ily residential units and recreational areas. entative Map to subdivide a 12-acre site into 4 lots + 1 lot held in common. Continuedfro uly 26,2005 Planning Commission meeting. Request removal from alendar. Use Permit to add 1.774 square fe to an existing 7,345 square feet shopping center omestead 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) ORAL COMMUNICATION: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 4. U-2005-04 Robert Linberg (Gate Of Heaven Cemetery) 22555 Cristo Rey Drive 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 2f) - 2:¿ 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 ~ere 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 trom 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 trom 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 trom 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 '20 - Z3 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 fonowing 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 stin 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 of the 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 tan, 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 WWII 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 instaned as soon as possible. · The other members of our community feel the same way. 20- 2-4- Cupertino Planning Commission 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 from 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 from 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 askis 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. 2-D -7~ Cupertino Planning Commission 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 from 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 from 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 iooks like now and the proposed gravesites. 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 tò 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 flat 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. 20- Z(¡J Cupertino Planning Commission 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 perfonned. 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 pennanently to remove and pennanently 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 fteeway 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 tenns of the natural slope. · This should be approved only as far as the 7 concessions we made, and then on the 8th in tenus 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 ftom 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 friend 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 '2.0 - '21 Cupertino Planning Commission 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 j,?b 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 à fundamental impact on the visual landscape ofthe 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 IS 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 from 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 2O-L'6 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 ofland 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 from 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 piace, 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 of the points that staff has requested approval for. 2-0- Z-q Cupertino Planning Commission 11 August 23, 2005 Andy Huang, Oak Valley 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. 1 am worried that if the Planning Commission approved tonight the change in use permit, how will 1 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 1 explain to my children? 1 think it sets a bad precedent for our children. · 1 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. · 1 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. · V isitors to the park were amazed at such a beautiful, relaxed setting, with no vertical markers. ZO-'30 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 rrom 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 staffs 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 peffilit 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? W-3\ Cupertino Planning Commission 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 hand1e 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 wou1d 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 from 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 pub1ic 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 p1ace. 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 from the cemetery for making so many changes to accommodate the residents' needs and thanked the residents for working so hard to cooperate with thecemetery in making the changes. w-?;;2- 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 rrom. · 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 ~o - '53 Cupertino Planning Commission 15 August 23, 2005 toward the community, reaching a compromise on the 8 important items brought tonight for the application. o I want to acknowledge the veterans who are here tonight; I can understand their ftustration 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. o 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. o 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. o 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. o Also one thing Mr. Wheeler brought out which resonated with me regarded safety, handicap issues and drainage. o 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: o 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 12 feet tall without other approval; is that a number we are all comfortable with? w-3tt Cupertino Plmming Commission 16 August 23, 2005 Mr. Piasecki: · 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 remaIn. · 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. · 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. · He said that he could not imagine going back to the families about changes. Com. Giefer: · 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: · 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 MiUer: · Said he agreed with Chair Wong, and that staff would suggest appropriate wording. Mr. Piasecki: · There are a total of 8 conditions that were applied to the use permit 2005-04; condition 1 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 lD -35 Cupertino Planning Commission 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." o 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. o 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. o "and then the colors shall be muted.." - Delete those two sentences in the second paragraph of Condition No.3. o 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. o 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: o 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 R 1 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 trom the original use permit that are still effective would be recorded against the property; that way you 2D - 3(p Cupertino Planning Commission 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 ",anted 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 from 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. 2005-12, ASA-2005-08, EX 005-13 Tony Pantale i (Marianist Province 0 he U.S.) 22622 Marian' t Way Use Permit to convert a retreat nter to a retirement center and construct a 6,900 uare foot addition. Architectural and Site Ap oval for a 6,900 square foot addition to an exis . g retreat/retirement center. Fence Exception to cate an electronic gate on the Merriman A venu ntrance to a proposed retirement Center. Planni g Commission decision final unless Appealed. Aki Honda, Senior Planner, presen the sta report: · Reviewed the application for use p . to convert a retreat center and construct a 6,900 square foot addition; Architectural an ite Approval for a 6,900 square foot addition to an existing retreat/retirement center a fe e exception to locate an electronic gate on the Merriman Avenue entrance to a p posed retir ent center, as outlined in the staff report. · The site is accessed by two pa ng lots, one 10ca d off Alcalde Road which will provide 14 spaces; the site already ma' tains the parking spa ; however, the parking spaces along Alcalde Road are primaril serviced by an adjacent lot ed by the Marianists; because of this staff is requesting t t the applicant record an easement the property to maintain the 14 parking spaces on the te and also the driveway access along A Ide Road. · Staff recommends condition to add park impact fees to the proj t site, because previously the site was used a retreat center where park impact fees were not ap ied to the project; and the facility is b 'ng changed to a retirement living facility. · She reviewe the floor plan, elevations, noise impacts, architectural design, ndscaping and lighting, tì cing and fencing exception, signage and neighborhood meeting as staff rep · Staff commends a condition related to the lighting that they reduce the height of th lighting fix res 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. 2.{)-31 p..rmitt.ee in bereby gr.....ted a C"",..t";y Pend~ in. necord.",C" with ~d Qubj.."t to thil pr""iø:t.GØ;j.o£ Articl!! 9. Chapter 1, Title 5 of. tb.. CountY, Ordinance Code, ~aid pBrmit 18 Aubj.oc~. to J;bo following condiU'one: ........ '. 1. 1?111t18 for the proposed d"'olò¡;ment'; including, bul:''''1: limited to... 10"<lt1011 _d deaign :Of8CC""~ ·dr1.v";'lI.yll, be ;'þ!>l .,..,ed by the Pl4niitDg Commbsion through .A%ch11:ect\ttal end stte AlIp1:O\'<ll procedures' aa Bet· forth in Secti_ ·38 ,,£ th.. ·count)':0.t;.S"nt....C1tta :¡;oning ordinance No'. NS~1200.. .. '. ..... .'. . ", ,,' ".' ." . . . 2. :rba'pø:mittee meet .U requ1réDi~h'of th.. Cal;Ìnty'Jf Santa · clara Depart:llIeut of l'utilic WorkB rdal:ivé '1:0,' dedlcadotl Md. 1ni-' prov"",ent of .additional utraBt ridi~¡j: 1)£ ,,"à1', "her. found n,~. ..IUlary by. ouch County agency. . ':".,," 3. ~CC""" .to. t!'.é C~!lt:~ ~_"'" P~~n!,:"~~ad:.!>5~:.:';""I:X~ct,,d, to IIcrvlcëVïifù;ërell =ly Aiña nõt: ûiîi( ail ã mglilDa or ",""eaa ;Eor . -fUDara"1prõceš81OiiA'; ." ;, . . :" ...,'. '.' 4;' ":4c:CI!~ii.·J9_·.:tb.~_~.s¡q,""T;,tt1;y_.Þ~E'1.t!i_pri;¡éc'I~n8 'and \l1Útol:8 'be from a po:l.rit: on the Mounta;t:t View~¡¡t""S1\8 Cl:eek ltoad,. b4,t..ean .th!,. p~pOj..d Junlpero sura Fr2t>WoyextetiØ'iol1 ond P<i:=an,,,ï1:ii"'Xõi'd, '. . a,¡éh poifít..·!:,Ó '''e' "iiëä1>'U'è1,ea pul:$ui1ìI\:· 1:0 the; ¢:D"a<1WOer6qlr1~ea- by ConditiOn No, 1 lIIet torth herein, IUld 'not avffr' etreet8l1ucb' ... St. Jo...pb ÁVc:1Ué,. Arbor"t"", Lane. V:l.neY4Td Avemé¡ 01:.. any otber local 8t:e"t.ant~iug throu8b.re.identlAl.ubdiV£A£on*~ : 5·. 'l'beeCllletery be devli10ped 'AIII a'Meuio~1ài P~k"':ì.i:41:lrit: . · ho:r:l.zonta:1 IDIttke:rll, and all statuary Ø1d Snrlne8' bt> lOÇl1t~,r,tt".r.. 1n,u.c7æëirÖñp1:ãriii "'pprO'/ed by the Planning CObimillsion. thruUgn ilrchitcocturel andeSite ApprovAL procedu1:". a8 set fortb in Condlt1oø N,, 1 ber..:I.n. ' .." ., . . . .- . · :. Puraueitt t.ò.thc I:e,,,l"t:l.on o£ the Bcerd· of $up_:LII~a of .HuI count,. of Santa·.Cur... P&'.,ßd, and odoþted on August 13, 196:!, . . ~'~~~;~1~.~~E~~ . f ~~~f .~ R·....¡·1J'.· ..~..',;".-~. . .:. " J. ~, Clerk ' , :" · ~11"~:Ú~,¡;¿Ô~..J: 81),rd .pf .501. p.."",:l.øora .... "'Y'''l,J96SlZ;;¡:3-lJ''¡f' ". ';', " <.....;. <. ".:..::.:;. · '. . ,,,.. ß. .... _",.-}.IoI '. .. -c;:-...'" · JIWJ: 1I:"T<"'1-<', 8,.,..,-1..... '- ----_.... ._6..."-,,.__,..., .. .... ,__ _."._.. . '} r' . . ....! ~E'=~ ,:ri,~:~:;~>.~ c' · . s.....;::.:..;: .·.~~I"~t:~!,;. . ,~.. '. ,::.' ".:., ;,.' "\ .a-'rJ.:' ',,' d ',."", ;:':," (', ~ I .' . ','. MQH:.1g~i/16/62· . TI>;,fóre'!.:Ô"i ~"'t'"",H ¡Ù· ~~:.:;:';"\~~(ì\..;.~,,;",:. r. '. CDrre.et [o.oy r;f th~.oriJ1'Inal :"';" "¢""' ""¡''!·~4....'. '.. . . , '. ~ r~o/1:""d·.:eìt{j~;;~·, ~...". AtTEST. Jr,N .Þ~LLAN ' ...,~....;If";"·"."<.:C~"ß.¡¡'I..... '·'er·. ...' . _;_,~t::, ",. ..: .~.......;.~-. ,~ '. .@I~.I!I,illilrcr <:If ~'5.?~t':t.- '. :~'~i:~~'. ..... :':¡(r~~ By ~ ... . ': :~,;" . ''''' i~....".;,.<:~.. .¡n"j.....7=- /,r- ~.:c. _...",- i~1~1~[~{.r¡':¡): . ....- - ..""..,.'1>r..... .. . "" ,'., :f';...,¡~{~1~:::~:.~:~;;."':,'b .'-'" EXHIBIT A 11/29J2~B4 11:13 b~d42837~3 GAi£ or ~~~~ CEM~~ Tlf'= N":;Zlf/ '@ ('íE/?'lÆ j,O;;:f> /~j::..,. < '-..<. , l ¿). f>j1.. {,~ '7} . '- - Ð~&,( M I'I..J...JY fi). IF: .. . .-o? SUi"DlvUORs' OF-:t!nt 00= OF' 9Am'A C ... .. EXHIBIT A .' - -.. ... ÇEMEn:R.Y PEWIT ISS1J1::D l"Ot DATE I InCATIONI Rornnn Catl,\olic.Archb1øhop of s.... Ii"r...c:.."'" ,. . , . . 'j Augua t 13. 1962 ., , WLtb:l.n the 111:,," deacribad :I.n Exhibit A ~tt...cl¡;!d bereto ilnd 1Þaðe ... pnrtbœ"o£ byrøfßr;",ce, .. . .. .. - -~.. --,', . '-'-.- . ,. . AILt.""" "0' .'.,. . 'L..~h . .... , S. ~AMi,uw" .... ..., .....:;.. &t'"\JI~ ..;¡ '., ,'" ':;if: :0 :'~):.":¡,' . , ___,~J:... __:..._-.:. __ '.". ~..._,-- 20- 32 8/8 a5Bd~LOv# ~r!~dO~;G~ ÇO/v~/~O ~8~aG8G80v dll IN080110 I8V883j :Áq +uas 6 foot high monuments, approximately 30' from the property line of adjacent residences, in a new concrete plaza. The niche feature consists of two 6'8" columns 12' from the property line. These features are located in the northeast section of the cemetery, and are adjacent to residences. An existing flagpole was reinstalled at the same height as it was before. Additional trees and shrubs are proposed near the northeast property line. zo-3C1 IPOSAL - , rans Œrs and e features ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION The Veterans' markers consist of six These features are visible to approximately three residences from their second story windows. ¡:p t-< >-< ¡:p >-< :r:: >< ~ IMPACTS EXHIBIT B PROPOSED MITIGATION A row of evergreen trees is proposed between the Veterans' markers and the property line (see Sheet 3A). They will be maintained at a height of 12-14 feet, which will block views of the markers, but will not obstruct views of the hills from the adjacent homes. The niche feature is relocated near the road and will be covered by a trellis. relocated further away from the property line, and will be in line with the flag. The new setback is 39 feet. (see sheet 4). see the markers. The trees will need to be maintained at a height that does not block views from the residences to the hillsides. NEW DESCRIPTION The Veterans' markers are Adjacent neighbors will not be able to IMPACTS cemetery. It is six feet high and six feet wide zo-40 2 Pieta Statue A niche feature consisting of a 10-foot high trellis and two 6 foot-high niche columns would be located in the middle of a flat-marker area. A 6' high bronze statue would be located south of the lake in at an intersection in the center of the adjacent properties. The statue would not be visible from No change needed. The niche feature will be visible at a distance from open space lands. Four laurel trees (evergreen, growing to 12-40 feet tall) are proposed at each comer of the feature. Niche feature improved screening. No change needed. Existing upright markers There is an existing area of 36 upright markers in the south center of the cemetery. Staff can find no evidence that these markers were approved by the county. The existing markers are visible at a distance to residents on Hammond Way. PROPOSED MITIGATION Low shrubbery should be provided around the existing upright markers to reduce visibility. proposed for screening. Low shrubbery should be added for PROPOSAL ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION IMPACTS NEW DESCRIPTION Redwood trees are IMPACTS The Crucifix in the Bishops Plot will be replaced with a 12' statue of St. Joseph and a 8' statue of St. John Vianney, screened by 5 redwood trees. W-4\ 3 - ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION A 32' foot high The crucifix would be crucifix is proposed in visible from the the northeast section residents on Canyon of the cemetery, next Oak Way and from to the office. The the open space material is bronze. property. PROPOSED MITIGATION Four redwood trees, 28' feet high at time of planting, are proposed to screen the cross. NEW DESCRIPTION The crucifix is relocated near the lake; it has been reduced to a height of 28' and will be made of redwood. Trees adjacent to the crucifix will provide screening. The crucifix will not be visible to adjacent residences or open space areas, except the top will be visible initially until the trees mature. Crucifix PROPOSAL IMPACTS IMPACTS There is an existing area of 36 upright markers in the south center of the cemetery. Staff can find no evidence that these markers were approved by the county. The existing markers are visible at a distance to residents on Hammond Way. Low shrubbery should be provided around the proposed markers to reduce visibility . 20 - 42-- 4 Upright markers ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION The upright markers are proposed in two general areas: southeast area and southwest area. There would be 4,393 markers on a total of 3 acres. The markers are 30" high, 28" wide and 6" deep. They would be placed in rows with two markers "back to back." The upright markers in the southwest area will be visible from open space lands and residences on Hammond Way. The upright markers in the southeast area will not be visible to residents on Canyon Oak Way, but will be visible, at a distance from open space lands. PROPOSED MITIGATION The applicant proposes evergreen screening on the northeast edge. Additional landscape screening would need to be provided on the west edge of this area. NEW DESCRIPTION Two upright marker areas have been relocated away from the residential and open space areas. The markers will be placed against flagstone retaining walls, which will be terraced to follow the contours of the ground. the upright markers. Additional landscape screening is recommended to reduce visibility of PROPOSAL IMP ACTS IMPACTS Calvary Catholic Cemetery 2655 Madden Avenue San J osé CA 95116 tel 408-258-2940 fax 408-258-5614 t Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery 22555 Cristo Rey Drive Los Altos CA 94024 tel 650-428-3730 fax 650-428-3733 t St. John Catholic Cemetery Old Piedmont Road Milpitas CA 95116 tel 408-258-2940 fax 408-258-5614 Catholic Cemeteries of the Diocese of San J osé August 15, 2005 Ciddy Wordell City of Cupertino Community Development, Planning 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 EXHIBIT C Re: Gate of Heaven/Use Permit Application Dear Ms Wordell: At the conclusion of the initial hearing on our above-referenced application, held on June 14,2005, the planning commission suggested that representatives of the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery ("Cemetery") and representatives of those opposed to the application meet, confer, and attempt to reach agreement on various aspects of the proposed application. Pursuant to that suggestion, we held three meetings at Gate of Heaven Cemetery (on June 21, August 2, and August 9, 2005). As you know, on August II, you joined us for our fourth meeting held at your offices. As a result of these discussions, I am pleased to report that the Cemetery has developed modifications to its initial site plan and application. The enclosed site plan, incorporated herein, reflects these modifications. I am also pleased to report that the parties have reached consensus on the following items 1 through 7, which are generally described below. As to item 8 (Upright Markers), the Cemetery has made significant compromises and concessions reflected in the modification and site plan. 1. Veterans' Plaza. The granite monuments will be aligned evenly with the flagpole, three to the left of the pole, and three to the right. The niche feature with trellis will be reduced from a height of six niches to four, with appropriate trellis screening. The Cemetery has agreed to landscape the perimeter of the entire Veterans' Plaza area and to refrain from using the landscape buffer area running along the perimeter fence of Veterans' Plaza for burial purposes. The Veterans' Plaza perimeter shrub screening has been extended as indicated on the site plan and, operationally, the Cemetery will limit the height of this screening to approximately eight feet above the fence line to preserye the view of the mountains. 2. Crucifix. The proposed crucifix will be removed from the Bishop's Plaza area and placed in the large grassy area near the lake. The crucifix, whose height has been reduced from the originally proposed thirty-two feet to twenty-eight feet, will be screened by the addition of evergreen trees to be installed behind the crucifix, blocking the sight lines from Hammond Way. The color of the cross will be "redwood." The Cemetery believes that, while initially the top three feet of the crucifix will be visible from certain areas, over time, the landscaping and the color will blend, reducing the remaining visibility. 20-43 Calvary Catholic Cemetery 2655 Madden Avenue San José CA 95116 tel 408-258-2940 fax 408-258-5614 t Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery 22555 Cristo Rey Drive Los Altos CA 94024 tel 650-428-3730 fax 650-428-3733 t 51. John Catholic Cemetery Old Piedmont Road Milpitas CA 95116 tel 408-258-2940 fax 408-258-5614 Catholic Cemeteries of the Diocese of San J osé 3. Bishop's Plot. In lieu of the crucifix, Bishop's Plot will contain a statue of St. Joseph, the patron of the Diocese. The statue will be approximately twelve feet tall and will be placed above the plaza where the crucifix was initially proposed. Additionally, an approximate eight-foot statue ofSt. John Vianney, patron saint of priests, will be placed near the plot in proximity to the area where deceased priests have been buried. 4. Existing Upright Markers. The Cemetery has placed eight redwood trees in forty-eight-inch boxes to mitigate the sight line from Hammond. There are four open contracts in this area that have not been utilized by the families owning them. The Cemetery will negotiate with those families when the Cemetery is contacted and will attempt to gain their agreement to utilize flat markers as opposed to upright markers. 5. The Saint Gregorv/Santa Nino Niche. The parties have agreed that because of operational needs, the feature will remain as originally designed. 6. Pieta. There has been no opposition to the Pieta statuary or its site. 7. Corooration Yard. In response to a suggestion from the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, the cemetery has planted twenty-one thirty-six-inch box trees to mitigate the sight line into the corporation yard. 8. Upright Markers. Based on input from certain families of those who have been buried at Gate of Heaven, from neighbors, and from the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, the Cemetery undertook a study of various alternatives relative to minimizing sight lines for upright markers. In lieu of the initially proposed back-to-back freestanding upright markers, the new proposal for upright markers, as described in the attached site plan, places the markers up against a series oflandscaped flagstone retaining walls. The retaining walls will follow the natural slope and contour of the ground, minimizing the visibility issue and maintaining the character of the cemetery. The Cemetery believes this alternative is a fair and reasonable compromise that accommodates the various concerns raised by those stakeholders in the application. We look forward to discussing any questions that you may have concerning the enclosed modifications of the site plan and our pending permit application. On behalf of the Cemetery, I would like to thank the Commission for its suggestions, you and the Planning Staff for facilitating the collaborative process, and all those, especially Jim Wheeler and Mark Edwards, who participated in the process. Sincerely Yours, ~~ Director of Catholic Cemeteries of the Diocese of San Jose 10 - 44 Oak Valley Community Awareness August 17,2005 EXHIBIT D Cupertino Planning Commission 10350 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Gate of Heaven Permit U-2005-04 - Public Hearing Aug 23, 2005 Dear Honorable Commissioners: At the conclusion of the public hearing on June 14, the Planning Commission suggested that representatives of the local community and the Gate of Heaven management meet, negotiate, and attempt to resolve issues presented during the public hearing. With that direction, local residents gathered to discuss the details of the permit application, and researched the history of the development agreement between the Diocese of San Jose, the City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County Parks Department, and O'Brien Group. The local residents then coordinated with representatives of the Mid- Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), and veterans representing the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the American Legion, to reach consensus on common issues. A consolidated list of issues was prepared, representing input from all of the interested parties. Representatives of the local residents held a series of meetings to negotiate directly with the Gate of Heaven Cemetery management. After each negotiation meeting the MROSD, the local residents, and the veterans groups were updated on the progress towards resolving the open issues. Results of these negotiations were reported in a joint meeting with Gate of Heaven management at the City Planner's office on Aug 11. This cooperative effort, through direct negotiations and timely communication, has successfully resolved seven of the eight issues. The "vertical gravestones" issue is the only item not yet resolved, although significant efforts were made by the Cemetery and the local community to reach resolution. The most recent proposal by the Cemetery includes vertical gravestones installed in front of a flagstone retaining wall. After reviewing this latest proposal with all interested parties, and surveying local residents by phone and in writing, we found an overwhelming majority of the neighbors are opposed to the proposed shift to vertical gravestones, whether or not combined with flagstone retaining walls. Although we appreciate the Cemetery's modification of their initial proposal, the local community is steadfast in its belief that the proposed change would represent a significant shift to the character of the Cemetery and the neighborhood, and result in conversion of the "Memorial Park" into a "graveyard." The local community believes that implementation of this proposal would impact the area, the neighborhood and surrounding properties in a negative way. 1 w~45 Oak Valley Community Awareness Please find below an item-by-item report on the discussions and resolutions reached between the local community and the Cemetery: 1. Crucif"lx - Resolved. This item was resolved by the Cemetery's plan to relocate the Crucif"lx away from the Bishops Circle to the large grassy area near the lake. This is the. area by the lake where outdoor Memorial Day Services are held. The local community and the MROSD reviewed the story pole version of the Crucifix in the proposed location by the lake and approved it. The fact that new location is approximately 500 ft further away from the homes and children's park, and is 20-25 feet lower elevation than the Bishops Circle, results in a big improvement. In the new location, the top 2-3 feet of the Crucifix is still visible from Cristo Rey and Hammond Way. However, additional redwood trees will be installed, which will eventually reduce the visibility from Cristo Rey and Hammond Way. The color of the cross will be redwood, which will make it less visible than the white story pole. Background info -- A proposal was submitted by the local community to reduce the Crucifix to life size in its current location, or move the Crucifix from the Bishops Circle to an area closer to the Chapel where services are held. The Cemetery chose to go back to the original plan for Bishops' Circle, using a life-size statue of Saint Joseph at the location where the Crucifix was proposed. Actual size including pedestal mount may result in a final height of 10-12 feet tall. 2. Veterans Memorials - Resolved. A series of proposals were submitted in order to relocate the Veterans Memorials further away from the "green belt" that previously separated the home sites from the Cemetery. Since these proposals involved moving the Veterans Memorials away from the flagpole, they were deemed unacceptable. A more definitive proposal was submitted to establish a buffer zone between the neighborhood fence and the Cemetery. This proposed buffer zone provides a 35 ft setback limit for above ground construction, and a separate 22 ft limit for in-ground burials (the "Buffer Zone"). Since the Veterans Memorials were previously located within that area, this proposal involved moving the monuments forward on the Veterans Plaza area, out of the buffer zone. This item was resolved through the agreement with the Cemetery to (i) move the Veterans Memorials 15 feet further away from the neighborhood fence line, to the same distance as the flagpole, and (ii) formally establish a Buffer Zone. The new Site Plan shows this solution with the Veterans Memorials aligned side-by- side, three on each side ofthe flagpole. The Veterans groups have agreed this is the best possible location for the Veterans Memorials. The landscaping in the Buffer Zone will include trees approximately the same height as the oleanders that were removed. The Cemetery has agreed to document the maximum height of the landscaping at 7 ft above the fence in the Veterans Plaza area, and 4 ft above the fence in other areas. Annual topping of the trees will be performed to retain the neighbors' view of the mountains. 2 W-4LP Oak Valley Community Awareness Background -- The four proposals that were submitted prior to the resolution include: 1) Develop a sunken amphitheater approach -- not accepted by the Cemetery due to handicap requirements, maintenance, drainage, and safety. 2) Mòve the monuments across the roadway next to the office area -- not accepted due to the Cemetery's desire to preserye the area as a future high value region. 3) Move the monuments near the roadway at the front of the Veterans Section -- not accepted due to the distance from the flagpole. 4) Move the monuments near the roadway for 355 days a year, and near the flag for 10 days a year for annual ceremonies -- not accepted due to the distance from the flagpole. 3. Pieta - Resolved. Accepted as designed -- meets local community criteria for life- size statuary, has a bronze patina, is located in a circle away from nearby homes, and cannot be seen from Rancho San Antonio trails. 4. Maintenance Yard (Corporate Yard) - Resolved. -- Cemetery has installed 21 trees along the fence line to mitigate views from Rancho San Antonio. They have also installed 4 redwood trees on the side facing Cristo Rey and Hammond Way. 5. Existing vertical gravestones - Resolved. Out of respect for the families who unknowingly purchased contracts for vertical gravestones that were not legally sold, no change will be made. Eight redwood trees have been installed to mitigate sight lines from Cristo Rey and Hammond Way. 6. Open contracts for vertical gravestones -- Resolved. Only four 30-year old contracts exist. The Family Seryices group at Gate of Heaven will discuss options with the families when they next contact the Cemetery, and the Cemetery will use good faith efforts to convert the contracts to' approved markers. 7. Niche Features - Resolved. (a) The new Saint Gregory/Santa Nino Niche feature accepted as designed -- at grade, with landscaping and a wood trellis. (b) The niche feature for the Veterans area will be relocated to the northern end of the Veterans Section. Also, its height will be reduced to 3-4 rows. Landscaping and a wood trellis will be installed to match the Saint Gregory/Santa Nino niche feature. 3 1.-0-41 Oak Valley Commi.mity Awareness 8. Upright Gravestones - Unresolved. The Cemetery has submitted three separate proposals. All three proposals have included vertical gravestones, which the local community believes would result in a significant change to the character of both the Cemetery and the neighborhood. A) Back-to-Back Gravestones -- The original proposal included back-to-back gravestones mounted on a concrete strip. There were four areas set aside for vertical gravestones. One area was located immediately behind a home on Canyon Oak Way. B) Gravestones with Flagstone Retaining Walls on Terraces -- The second proposal to use vertical gravestones was shown using pictures from Rose Hills Cemetery. The vertical gravestones were installed next to flagstone retaining walls, using terracing to provide horizontal burial areas. This proposal could be installed only on the sloped areas ofthe Cemetery. Although these areas were located further away from the homes, this method has an even more complex impact on the open environment of the Cemetery. These sloped areas may contain as many as 15-20 terraced flagstone walls. Specific input from the MROSD is that it takes away the natural slope of the land, and does not mitigate the vertical gravestones. C) Gravestones with Flagstone Retaining Walls on Natural Slopes -- The third proposal retains some of the natural slope of the land, using sloped burial areas between flagstone retaining walls. It still does not mitigate the vertical gravestones. A picture from Rose Hills Cemetery was shown as an example. We look forward to the August 23 public hearing, and the opportunity to provide additional information and details regarding the agreements reached and the one remaining unresolved issue. We would like to thank those many Cupertino residents in the local community who participated in many ways to help reach consensus on some very complex issues. Also, a big Thank You to representatives of the local Veterans groups, representatives of the MROSD, and the multitude of Oak Valley residents who stayed in touch daily via the neighborhood Yahoo group and web site. Thank you also to the Planning Commission Staff for their expertise and professionalism. Finally, thank you to Robert Lindberg and his team at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery for their extensive efforts, openness and spirit of cooperation. Respectfully srJ¿;' ~. 22238 Hanunond Way ,........ );p~ Mark Edwards 10512 Peralta Court cc: Ciddy Wordell- Cupertino City Planner 4 2-D-LYl Oak Valley Community Awareness August 17, 2005 Cupertino Planning Commission 10350 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Request to establish a buffer zone for Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery Dear Honorable Commissioners: Please consider this a formal request for the Planning Commission to establish a 35 ft buffer zone between the Canyon Oak Way neighborhood fence and the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery. This formal request is being made as an integral part of our agreement with the Gate of Heaven Cemetery to reposition the Veterans Memorial monuments away from the homes, aligned with the flagpole. The need for establishing this buffer zone was caused by Gate of Heaven's recent actions. In early 2005, the Gate of Heaven removed the "green belt", which had been in place since 1998, and encroached on the de facto buffer zone with new construction. By establishing this buffer zone, the Planning Commission has the opportunity to ensure that future issues of this type can be avoided. Background: Although there were no specific setbacks or screening defined for the Gate of Heaven Cemetery when the Oak Valley development was subdivided and created, the pre- existing construction limits and screening provided by a wall of oleanders in place since 1998 can be considered as a de facto buffer zone or "green belt." The oleanders, which were located approximately 30 feet from the fence line, and 10-12 feet tall, provided the screening necessary to both mitigate noise as well as to control sight lines between the homes and the cemetery. This was an effective screen for several reasons: . First, noise from military funerals, including ceremonial firing of rifles, was mitigated, and visitors to the Veterans area were not interrupted by noises from nearby backyard pools or the children's park. . Secondly, the 10-12 ft height of the oleanders provided an ideal protection of sight lines for both the cemetery and the homes. Visitors to the cemetery did not have to grieve within view of the second story windows of nearby homes, and homeowners had a view of the mountains without viewing cemetery activities. I 'lo-4Q Oak Valley Community Awareness Construction in the Buffer Zone: Before the recent construction began, the nearest cemetery construction in the area next to the neighborhood fence line consisted of horizontal grave markers and the base of the flagpole, which are both 36 feet from the fence. This provided a reasonable separation of cemetery activities with the activities of the nearby homes, and will be maintained by establishmg a 35 ft buffer zone. This request is being made because the Gate of Heaven Cemetery has recently removed the de facto buffer zone and encroached on the area by new construction. The oleanders were removed and construction was commenced and completed without notification to the neighborhood and without submitting a permit to the City Planning Department. We respectfully request that the 35 ft buffer zone or "green belt" be established before any consideration is given to approving. construction permits in this area, and with the following specifics included as part of the buffer zone definition. 1. The buffer zone for above ground construction is defined as 35 ft from the neighborhood fence located behind the homes on Canyon Oak Way. 2. The buffer zone for in-ground burials is defmed as 22 ft from the neighborhood fence located behind the homes on Canyon Oak Way. 3. The "green belt" must be the same height as the oleanders to maintain the residents view of the mountains. Since the oleanders were 10-12 ft high, the replacement "green belt" needs to be no more than 4 feet above the top of the 8 ft fence. The cemetery will perform annual pruning to maintain the 12 ft heig.ht. The six Arbutus Marina trees located on the elevated grade around the Veterans Plaza will be maintained at 12 feet tall. Because of the elevated grade, they will be maintained to a maximum height of? ft above the 8ft fence. 4. The proposed Veterans Plaza extends to within 22 feet of the fence line and includes six Veterans Memorial monuments, which were located between 25 and 35 feet of the fence line. As part of this agreement, the Veterans Memorial monuments will be aligned with the pre-existing flagpole approximately 40 ft from the neighborhood fence line. Since the Veterans Plaza concrete pad extends into the proposed buffer zone, we agree that it can stay as is, if no further construction, benches, niches, or statuary are placed on the pad area. 5. The niche feature concrete pad which was installed within 11 feet of the fence line, inside the 35 ft buffer zone, must be removed. Support for Veterans Memorials: The local residents are in total agreement that the Veterans Memorials are an appropriate honor for those who are buried in the Veterans section. We fully support the Veterans organizations that are backing this effort. However, we respectfully submit that the Gate of Heaven Cemetery should in return honor the de facto buffer zone and maintain it as an integral part of good business relations with the nearby community. By establishing this buffer zone, the Planning Commission has the opportunity to ensure that future issues of this type can be avoided. 2 1.0-50 Oak Valley Community Awareness Cupertino Municipal Code: The following Municipal Code sections authorize the Planning Commission to establish setbacks and screening: Gate of Heaven is zoned as ¡mJ- Quasi-Public Building. 19.64.050 Conditional Uses in a œ Zone. _ Religious, civic, and comparable organizations, for uses restricted to church buildings, community halls. administrative buildings, schoolrooms, recreational facilities. and athletic fields. convents, seminaries, and similar uses customarily associated with churches, including parking and landscaping areas. 19.64.090 Site Development Regulations. B. Setbacks and Screeninll. 1. There are no minimum setbacks in BA. Ii1i or T zoninQ districts: provided. however. that the PlanninQ Commission mav establish minimum setbacks with respect to each individual application for a conditional use permit in order to prQvide adeQuate IiQht. air and visibility at intersections. and to provide Qeneral conformity with adiacent and nearbv zones and lots. or to promote the Qeneral excellence of the development: 2. AdeQuate screeninQ to limit noise, to reduce Qlare of liQhts. and to prevent obnoxious omissions shall be orovided when deemed appropriate bv the PlanninQ Commission. (Ord.1601, Exh. A (part). 1992) Thank you for your consideration of this request. We appreciate your efforts on behalf of the community. Respectfully submitted, žj~ );p~ Jim Wheeler 22238 Hammond Way Cupertino, CA 95014 Mark Edwards 10512 Peralta Court Cupertino, CA 95014 Cc: Ciddy Wordell- cupertino City Planner 3 '20 - 5\ Oak Valley Community Awareness Summary of Coordination and Communications I) Community Meetings - "Attachment A" includes a list of 20 meetings held as part of working together with members of the community. These meetings were used to help research, confer, and resolve issues related to the permit submitted by the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. 2) Coordination calls and emails - Before and after each negotiation meeting with the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, participants called or emailed updates to the MROSD, as well as the VFW and American Legion veterans groups. 3) Petition/Survey - A survey of local residents was performed during the week of Aug 15 to collect opinions as to the acceptability of the most recent proposal for vertical gravestones received from the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery. The results showed that 75 residents oppose the new proposal for vertical gravestones. Only four people contacted felt that the new proposal represented a significant improvement, and did not sign the petition. The number of local residents who signed the June 12 petition opposing the initial proposal for vertical gravestones was 130. The main reason the more recent petition came up with only 75 signatures is because many families were on vacation this week - the last week before many children start back to school. To make certain the new proposal was understood, pictures were shown to participants, comparing the initial proposal with the new proposal. These pictures are included along with the signed petitions. '2.0 - 52 Attachment A Summary of Oak Yalley Community Awareness (OYCA) Meetings Sunday, May 8 OVCA Meeting #1 in Oak Valley Purpose: Discussed the upcoming neighborhood meeting with the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. Wednesday, May 18 Neighborhood Meeting with Oak Valley Residents and Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery at Cupertino City Hall Purpose: Discussed the Oak Valley neighborhood's concerns about the proposed plans for the Cemetery. Saturday, May 21 OVCA Meeting #2 in Oak Valley Puroose: Debriefed the neighborhood meeting with the Cemetery on May 18. Saturday, May 28 OVCA Meeting #3 in Oak Valley Purpose: Discussed objectives for the group and action items related to meeting with Cupertino Planning Commission on June 14. Created Yahoo! Groups email distribution list for OVCA. Saturday, June 4 OVCA Meeting #4 in Oak Valley Purpose: Discussed letters and petition signatures due on June 9 to the Cupertino Planning Department in preparation for the meeting with the Planning Commission on June 14. Saturday, June 11 OVCA Meeting #4 in Oak Valley Puroose: Discussed preparation for the meeting with Cupertino Planning Commission on June 14. Tuesday, June 14 Cupertino Planning Commission Meeting at Cupertino City Hall Purpose: Listen to the Gate of Heaven's proposed plans for the Cemetery as well as the concerns of residents, veterans, customers and others with regard these proposed plans. Wednesday, June 22 OVCA Meeting #5 in Oak Valley Purpose: Debrief the meeting with Cupertino Planning Commission on June 14 and start preparations for the meeting with Cupertino Planning Commission on August 23. Saturday, June 25 OVCA Meeting #6 in Oak Valley Purpose: Discussed various action items related to preparations for the meeting with Cupertino Planning Commission on August 23. 'LO-S3 Saturday, July 2 Saturday, July 9 Saturday, July 16 Thursday, July 21 Saturday, July 23 Tuesday, August 2 Saturday, August 6 Tuesday, August 9 Thursday, August 11 Saturday, August 13 Saturday, August 20 OVCA Meeting #7 in Oak Valley Puroose: Discussed various action items related to preparations for the meeting with Cupertino Planning Commission on August 23. OVCA Meeting #8 in Oak Valley Puroose: Discussed various action items related to preparations for the meeting with Cupertino Planning Commission on August 23. OVCA Meeting #9 in Oak Valley Puroose: Discussed positions on various items in preparation for the meeting with the Cemetery staff on July 21. Meeting #1 with OVCA Members and the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery Staff Puroose: Discussed eight individual items related to proposed plans for Cemetery. OVCA Meeting #10 in Oak Valley Purpose: Debriefed meeting with the Cemetery staff on July 21. Meeting #2 with OVCA Members and the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery Staff Puroose: Discussed open issues related to proposed plans for Cemetery. OVCA Meeting #11 in Oak Valley Puroose: Debriefed meeting with the Cemetery staff on August 2. Meeting #3 with OVCA Members and the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery Staff Puroose: Discussed open issues related to proposed plans for Cemetery. Meeting with OVCA Members, the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery Staff and the Cupertino Planning Department Puroose: Discussed eight individual items related to proposed plans for Cemetery. OVCA Meeting #12 in Oak Valley Purpose: Debriefed meeting with the Cemetery staff on August 9 and with Cupertino Planning Department on August 11. OVCA Meeting #13 in Oak Valley Puroose: Discussed various action items related to preparations for the meeting with Cupertino Planning Commission on August 23. w- 5L\- < ~;, -*" Original Proposed Method - Back-ta-Back Gravestones Alternative Proposed Method - Retainer Walls behind Gravestones Lo-55 August 13,2005 The undersigned object to the permit application dated March 29, 2005, by the Diocese of San Jose, which attempts to change the Gate of Heaven Cemetery's operating permit from a "memorial park with horizontal markers" to allow the installation of over 4000 vertical gravestones. Implementation plans using retaining walls behind the vertical gravestones do not make this application any more acceptable. Note: This petition will be presented to the Cupertino Planning Commission at the Aug 23, 2005 public hearing. You are encouraged to participate in the public hearing if you have time, or can simply make your voice heard by signing this petition. ,{~~ /r/~ ,·ti-.,_,--C ;f~~l<-v.ú Name c" I ~~ Name ~ v:? N / I JJ. GV=~ 47 r¿t-;( '&uti/P;+ Name -J:€<0l S; 1/&~/~ .~~v ~' , /-~I Òc~_--~~ Name , <f1F)o OD .<'350;- {];:)fi;¡,il::! C4 ,\ " .,(f Address 2'36¡r gat, , 0.lle Address e IvJJð j~~ Add ess ~ ,~ CNzI.ç¿y .- rr----- Address -vJ;kí & 81ac~ Oak 117 Address ~7 (" I h Bfo (~- (ld::: Lk¡ Address 1'~C, ! '5 ðc; k V{'Üel·J. Address fOLI')1 ,)~A- HI Address ~?LÌX Name J ó49/ ;::, 0/1 fa 8t Address Name Address Zb - SLP August 13, 2005 The undersigned object to the permit application dated March 29, 2005, by the Diocese of San Jose, which attempts to change the Gate of Heaven Cemetery's operating permit from a "memorial park with horizontal markers" to allow the installation of over 4000 vertical gravestones. Implementation plans using retaining walls behind the vertical gravestones do not make this application any more acceptable. Note: This petition will be presented to the Cupertino Planning Commission at the Aug 23, 2005 public hearing. You are encouraged to participate in the public hearing if you have time, or can simply make your voice heard by signing this petition. ~ ~E: c.tI.",~(...(tJ Name u;z..z. Íf t( tfM/'<oAJl) WAY Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address ZD - 51 Yahoo! Mail- ronyu_us@yahoo.com Page 1 of 2 YJ\.HOOJ", MAIL Print - Close Window ..;r:-'\ ¡:HJ",Pft(l' ~i' VUTSlDf IN" HTML EXPORT August 13, 2005 The undersigned object to the permit application dated March 29. 2005, by the Diocese of San Jose. which attempt1 to change the Gate of Heaven Cemetery's operating permit from a "memorial park with horizontal markers" to alJow the installation of over 4000 vertical gravestones. Implementation plans using retaining walls behind the vertical gravestones do not make this application any more acceptable. Nºl~_: This petition will be presented to the Cupertino Planning Commission at the Aug 23. 2005 public hearing. You are encouraged to participate in the public hearing if you have time, or can simply make your voice heard by signing this petition. .' 2-ilo( CAtV yvp a f:: tl0-"t" , ( {(j'/>':7I-T(,·~q 9~ol'f ./., i. Name Address -4( JJv-- tJ 21/01 e"",,'(f" Oc,,-k W(j , C~ CA íSÒI</ Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address 20 - 515 http://us.ß02.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Show Letter?box=Inbox&Msgld=273 _3322428_79550_... 8/1612005 August 13, 2005 The undersigned object to the permit application dated March 29, 2005, by the Diocese of San Jose, which attempts to change the Gate of Heaven Cemetery's operating permit from a "memorial park with horizontal markers" to allow the installation of over 4000 vertical gravestones. Implementation plans using retaining walls behind the vertical gravestones do not make this application any more acceptable. Note: This petition will be presented to the Cupertino Planning Commission at the Aug 23, 2005 public hearing. You are encouraged to participate in the public hearing if you have time, or can simply make your voice heard by signing this petition. ~Z23l? ~M~ Uk Y c?''ÁfJfM /VÓ &1 Atty WI-I<:ElE12..... Address J ,¡ .;2c:2~3õ ~4/4t¿?Þ0 WI'1)jW¿;q;~ Address ~ A~~"'ol\)à ~'( d.-'J<)..1t ;-Iú.J'YlmfJnd ~~M()Jf./w Address U' "'1' , . 222/ r If< h hdJ b.h.:;; ("in-fÎ¡v Address ./ d-;).;)./8' A~ {)¡ti ¿tl(:j J rlLp2rh~ D (}.:21..!9 HAw.!tvt. ~fJ UA-y C vT-h7ì.;ð Address ,)..:2;1.07 ~ W'! ¥. Address J-µJ7 ftkh~~ (/r' 2L \<i9ddre~~ ~~ ~ Address 0 ¡Z2-'7q ~ Î L)Jf Address r J'M WH£E1..Æf2. ~~kn/ I!Z /( ~ Name ~!~ajæ~ 116- 41L ame N1a Þ1 CU(.o --~ -¿o-Sq August 13, 2005 I The undersigned object to the permit application dated March 29, 2005, by the Diocese of San Jose, which attempts to change the Gate of Heaven Cemetery's operating permit from a "memorial park with horizontal markers" to allow the installation of over 4000 vertical gravestones. Implementation plans using retaining walls behind the vertical gravestones do not make this application any more acceptable. Note: This petition will be presented to the Cupertino Planning Commission at the Aug 23, 2005 public hearing. You are encouraged to participate in the public hearing if you have time, or can 'impl~~.Yð~ by ¿S;' ¡<titiO:W{ß rJ_~"", "''''i C "<7_'!.<b CA Name{ L-/ Address I j)~ j~ ~Ø1 ¡j~tJr..{ I ~th ~e" . - f Address ~¥~~_ =;z.;z.q ~ Wk(, ~} ó/ N· e Address ~;;''l1 1Ja.'MYv..1'J krl uJ~ ~ 1'-f,1\LJ{ ó4-- Address Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name 2-0 -laO August 13, 2005 The undersigned object to the permit application dated March 29, 2005, by the Diocese of San Jose, which attempts to change the Gate of Heaven Cemetery's operating permit from a "memorial park with horizontal markers" to allow the installation of over 4000 vertical gravestones. Implementation plans using retaining walls behind the vertical gravestones do not make this application any more acceptable. ~: This petition will be presented to the Cupertino Planning Commission at the Aug 23, 2005 public hearing. You are encouragèd to participate in the public hearing if you have time, or can simply make your voice heard by signing this petition. 1 @ 11(/7/14 ~LW(F0J- Name ~,; \'h(> {À'I\,",,~V\'V , . Name ," ~I\" . / \ . '. (( \ (j(J((.\(:::lA.'ìl (Jf) Nam~, (ftJ ~t?117_//.tt /1;' ame ,':. ---. I' / \ .1) ,:-¡ .J ft'f /...... V ¡ill t¡;r-_. Name A I \!.I,"'! Name \(/W"I ¿JoN Name b UN A( Lé-SUb~ Name JÉRA¡ f) Name' tr\1r¿ (J)" Name ¡; oAlC\Cy\ -I 'oJ K,OLh.:.t5 'f.../ vA L'-Ì¡·'\...J ~IOU U\J Name I iV,1} e /Y{ (;í1Jvul h( (' f f Address IG-"\-s<2 \<t],\\U(I\\~(,-" d- rj'50\4- Address 11.Y-\31 \--tV"? cndÀ ': 1-- -¡SC 1'- Address r Ie' ¿, ~ I"~ )~1 ,.j (1' C"'I ('" . ' . '. ,111"~r?~'N{' + I"" wl~ i'D If S 7 f\.\ p.~ "'.:. C.. q- C~1J I (/ Ad e 104f"i :11'\/'1 ;v."'~~\ yf- L¡ 'iN!/. Addfess fI/llf¡J2/f ).)1 Tlf Cr Address ' ~1n4 C:;f. Address ")0\4 /0 L/ ~/ . IOlf~ i~ t1,qN2:At-,j 11+1 cr. Address Ie L¡..q 1~ r ftMIl:1lt¡'/.~U-, Address IC') C Î IVjAN7-fr,N I t 1\ (' ¡-. Address . .À"'Ul\..\ aço/,/ (. '! W-li\ August 13, 2005 The undersigned object to the pennit application dated March 29, 2005, by the Diocese, of San Jose, which attempts to change the Gate of Heaven Cemetery's operating permit from a "memorial park with horizontal markers" to allow the installation of over 4000 vertical gravestones. Implementation plans using retaining walls behind the vertical gravestones do not make this application any more acceptable. N.Q1e.: This petition will be presented to the Cupertino Planning Commission at the Aug 23, 2005 public hearing. You are encouraged to participate in the public hearing if you have time, or can simply make your voice heard by signing this petition. ¿.. ... , t Ú/ \}, /Iu.'''' L/"f.( -- n /'"' Name~ /J .- \.' .;,,, b(~·J""-"A" fame l/ ,(,þ'1 ;;;m~' S Name io .... , 1..- ¡ (, 1-/' I ¡ UY¡/Ol1(T,A Address '.1 ( I . IÚ )7, , ,. J", ,"'! Address rl-- ........A, IDS 37 '''''1 "")V .--_ J{(.:) /' u- /-"'1 &n Address Dä-k Address Name Address Name Address Name Name Address Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name 2.0 - lP2...- August 13, 2005 The undersigned object to the permit application dated March 29, 2005, by the Diocese of San Jose, which attempts to change the Gate of Heaven Cemetery's operating permit from a "memorial park with horizontal markers" to allow the installation of over 4000 vertical gravestones. Implementation plans using retaining walls behind the vertical gravestones do not make this application any more acceptable. Note: This petition will be presented to the Cupertino Planning Commission at the Aug 23, 2005 public hearing. You are encouraged to participate in the public hearing if you have time, or can simply make your voice heard by signing this petition. ~ S t: \2-1\ NOfZ.\ ~~~ \ ()ÇS 0 Ml\tVi:AtJ l í1\ Cr Name Address Jf:JN. J VAS k:' E:17tv /<.l.kfLA.. ~, 10m MAN l/rtJ Irk (í Name Address eÚCiwli IWl4~ ~~ ./ /0)37- /Ÿ\...fli.1.~~'J.I:J=. 6(- Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address 20 - cP3 August 13, 2005 The undersigned object to the permit application dated March 29,2005, by the Diocese of San Jose, which attempts to change the Gate of Heaven Cemetery's operating permit from a "memorial park with horizontal markers" to allow the installation of over 4000 vertical gravestones. Implementation plans using retaining walls behind the vertical gravestones do not make this application any more acceptable. Note: This petition will be presented to the Cupertino Planning Commission at the Aug 23, 2005 public hearing. You are encouraged to participate in the public hearing if you have time, or can simply make your voice heard by signing this petition. ~~~ ·HARI ~f'r1J ~ Name ~~~~L lYName I Me0rv.. ~aAAW , ~Z~ wI;! O~'¥ Name j-1f'l...cN M.ClIZ.<Z LJ LfP~ Name cJì I \ Stttù /T (~ J ç~ Name " /1&:; ~ ¡!U'TI-I NcJVt~~ n/'--7 Name ~. éW"l- Name í1çJvAJ1fZt~ Name lor ~~J M fr; .])(¿.WJ G Address CT I 04 í, 5 'Þ1 cud. i'i:nlQ.- COLL Y f: Address LO'-!}<\ Illar)¡"o,"e C+· Address joCf7) /ltUL U Address lo~ò'f mt{dHY7?~ t.-é Address I ð .; \ --( M.O-.d.mòl\J) CJ- Address ¡ ùSJ.4 HtvlJ òV1 e, Cf. Address lÙ$;2'-{ VV\o)~ C+. Address 10')( <r ~(jV-..J¿ c r ' Address \ 0(" "Ii, 1'(Yì~ c(- Address \OG{¡l.o (ŸV1ß-,~,ß. cr Address ~o -lPtt August 13, 2005 The undersigned object to the permit application dated March 29, 2005, by the Diocese of San Jose, which attempts to change the Gate of Heaven Cemetery's operating permit from a "memorial park with horizontal markers" to allow the installation of over 4000 vertical gravestones. Implementation plans using retaining walls behind the vertical gravestones do not make this application any more acceptable. Note: This petition will be presented to the Cupertino Planning Commission at the Aug 23, 2005 public hearing. You are encouraged to participate in the public hearing if you have time, or can simply make your voice heard by signing this petition. r/..i{ f o--r 00 ~/rvCL.5t- Address I7J (Ó c¡ &.0 ~.V1'7{ ç, f- Address lo!J-1G VtJlf7jÆ SulaK PI Addr s Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address lo-Le5 August 13, 2005 The undersigned object to the permit applica~ion dated March 29, 2005, by the Diocese of San Jose, which attempts to change the Gate of Heaven Cemetery's operating pennit from a "memorial park with horizontal markers" to allow the installation of over 4000 vertical gravestones. Implementation plans using retaining walls behind the vertical gravestones do not make this application any more acceptable. ~JV~ ~ Name Ûen "'.. / /'£J.. 'fJJ¡£J ~N_ ~ ~.~~ ~ Name ~J{-&1-.{jv~ Name ?~ame~ _U~_ iZ_, N e ^.f-5~....-; A..y. S \J""o~fI.I'><:f Name ~ Note: This petition will be presented to the Cupertino Planning Commission at the Aug 23, 2005 public hearing. You are encouraged to participate in the public hearing if you have time, or can simply make your voice heard by signing this petition. V1Aa-¡c. (. ~ )0-;- I 2- tU'~ c J-- Address LD5/d p....r<I (6 (';f Address lOSI8. -Ve(iÅl'b. [;t-. Address ! t'rfo L k~ ,ff; Address 10,(0.2. ?JfUli.-Tff (;I. Address 101- ''12- f MAbA Address (O~ "i'J' FEe f\ LIlt' C,. Address c;;:f- I oS- J P G-ik-r4- <-1 Address 105/2.. fèml-\-c... CT. Address Name los n. P-u.. a. Address Name Address ~O-(PLP August 13, 2005 The undersigned object to the permit application dated March 29,2005, by the Diocese of San Jose, which attempts to change the Gate of Heaven Cemetery's operating permit from a "memorial park with horizontal markers" to allow the installation of over 4000 vertical gravestones. Implementation plans using retaining walls behind the vertical gravestones do not make this application any more acceptable. Note: This petition will be presented to the Cupertino Planning Commission at the Aug 23, 2005 public hearing. You are encouraged to participate in the public hearing if you have time, or can simply make your voice heard by signing this petition. 7CutA .¡--A~ ~/O-, --êame ").\\11,0 ~vL ~v.~\~t N e ""Î \ G QCY;ð ~ \ ~ ~")~ Name (]rJ/Wl¿~f1 JtW~~M ~"r '7c~ wvr ~.;Il \l~ Name 2//)2) Address C-cï ~ ') () '" ¿J -tic. ú/7 / 1. \\I.{ù C'Ú-I''l<-...... Address 0Cl\t LY~l ~ \ L{u (\:...."-'t-c.... Oede. ~l Address cJ.flOV CM-t!;/-tl>1 Oak tJaVf_ AddressU U 2-\ Oc¡ø C~'^yol' OCl...\.t. W'7" Address . .QIHo Cc..I--.ÿOIo.. Address ( Oc. k vJ q)" Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address 20 -lp l Regional Open Space ---- ~---- MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT EXHIBIT E August 16, 2005 Planning Commission City of Curpertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 SUBJECT: Gate of Heaven Cemetery - Use Permit Applicafion Honorable Commissionaires, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the permit application submitted by Gafe of Heaven Cemetery to the City of Cupertino. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Disfrict manages the 165-acre Rancho San Antonio County Park, which borders the cemetery, as well as the 3,800-acre Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, adjacent to the cemetery. This is the most heavily used Preserve out of the total of 26 managed by the District in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. This area also serves as an open space outlet to residents of the adjacent and surrounding urbanized areas. Currently all gravestones are inset in the ground and cannot be seen from adjacent open space and park lands. The proposal would allow installation of upright gravestones and terraced walls in portions of the cemetery. Though the proposed sites for upright gravestones are not directly visible from District land, the District opposes fheir installation as a change to the existing compatible open space character of the cemetery. The initial permit for the Cemetery was granted by the County of Santa Clara before the annexation of fhis area into the City of Cupertino. The County must have recognized that the Cemetery is locafed on the urban fringe adjacent to extensive natural areas. We applaud the County's resulting requirement in the Use Permit for flush gravestones to reduce the visual impacts of this use. The mere annexation of fhis ferritory into the City has not changed fhe adjacency of the Cemetery to exfensive natural areas. and the reasons for inset gravestones are just as valid now as they were then. Furthermore, the current permit proposal shows only anticipated development for the next 10 years. Less than half of the 58 acres is currently in use. but over time the long-range goal would be to develop the entire property. Some of the undeveloped land directly borders public land and is clearly visible when entering and exiting the preserve. We would not like a precedent set that "paves" the way for the installation of upright gravestones and terraced walls in the undeveloped areas of the cemetery not covered in the current plan. We commend Gate of Heaven for finding a suitable site for the proposed crucifix that is not visible from surrounding open space land. We also thank them for addressing our concerns over 330 Distel Circle . Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 . Phone: 650-691- 1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 . E-mail: Info@openspace.org . Web site: www.openspace.org 20- la~ Cupertino Planning Commission Page 2 August 16, 2005 the existing corporation yard by planting screening trees between the yard and District land. In the fufure the Disfrict suggests planting Oaks rather fhan Redwoods as fhey are more effective as a screen and betler suited fo the local environment. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the plans. If you would like to discuss this matler further. please feel free to contact planning manager Cathy Woodbury at (650) 691- 1200. Sincerely, L. Craig Britlon, General Manager Cc: MOSRD Board of Directors Robert Lindberg, Gate of Heaven Thomas P. O'Donnell. Esq. 1.0 -ld1 RECEIVEU JUN 2 9 2005 BY: County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency Parks and Recreation Department 298 Garden Hill Drive Los GatQs. California 95032-7669 (408) 355~2200 FAX 355~2290 Reservations (408) 355-2201 www n~rkh~r~ orQ' June 27, 2005 EXHIBIT F Ciddy Wordell, City Planner City of Cupertino Department of Community Development 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: Gate of Heaven Cemetery Use Permit - #U-2005-04 Dear Ciddy: It has corne to my attention that statements have been made regarding the County Parks Department's position regarding the subject use permit. I would like to formally weigh in on behalf of the Department. We take a neutral position on the proposal. Given the magnitude of comments received by the City, we would recommend that the applicant and community work together to address the potential view shed impacts. ~ Lisa Killo gh, Director Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department c: Robert Lindberg, Gate of Heaven Cemetery Jane Decker, Deputy County Executive Craig Britton, General Manager, MROSD Q. Board of supervisors: Donald F. Gage, Blanc~ Alvarado, Pete McHugh. James T. Beall. Jr., Liz Kniss V County Executive: Peter Kutras. Jr. S) &.012 2D-10 ~ I support Gate of Heaven Cemetery's appeal of the August 23, 2005 Planning Commission decision which is detailed in Resolution No. 631'( Address Phone Number $190 ",-I e...."..".... ^""' £-A S~~" c.lt't)"t)· 9..c~) (1 - Ov) S~'^ . S C' ~ c'- GÀn ' C;- / 5 ~ r'rt{ d ~ . \ (-l(.> ;., . I.? fo.6e.x Zl.5 - S,fk'rc, G,. 4-SRSS fZ-.«-<..J ,:> rµ;.,; s-s-t -7';>--0'0 Name --3 "tcl C;, 9()- '1/~ / tU5A GLI ¡/el(.Ä 4D'3' ()..lttv -)./ .5 -1,/ . __I ¡. . '7 / /6 i.¿ / . ,: -(;- ~('(\ <1' ('3 - 2~'-(- U( :5''). t¡Dfs' (, :¿ 9 . G- N.{) /.77y £./;-;7'/; 57' \ //c,J) ~'/7cÝ_IC¡- /") 5c::.-7 C~ " (-.,.", ç -/7'2 $;.- J?ÿ<5Æ'afi-:5/?J¿7;.1( ér¿~.J d-1-3 9:;:::></7 ...5,. ..7lrc·c i:.f70<j· , p, O· ß,"f 7 3ó1Po ð- ~~!:f' C o/5Tp i°¡-,59¡' l/3'59- C6Sò) t~ò- H~\ (~(H) 'bl~ S't,'1 \ ljoß' 9fì3-)~71 1~h ~ \.-v.~ ¡'\5\) ~(C¡pt '~\oe, ( llio-- °,1 . )...e.,(,h. M Cl...c..,~ Þvr\ß, (:J D&» 'S¡ d.-- ¿'<>1c.-;;:r- J:M\\""'" t~l. ,t W-ll I support Gate of Heaven Cemetery's appeal of the August 23, 2005 Planning Commission decision which is detailed in Resolution No. 631« Name Address Phone Number Go ~(?, ;7'-\'-1;- c:¿ '6ÇD m ~á" G 6õ ìr'ì3 - rt a...8' UQ\ücty ?é\ry. At1 01 J U'-iÁ 'fV\A'r ""V'r--qV\ " E2,3 QCOI..v- rC, "Z\L~ ~c..:"\ ~ ::::sD e...- \l....co...'l ~ f?.P~ (~ f;j;-..-. re. c..£.3e>2.- 7.s7 %<3 - ?>iL\.-'S'Ö'3D 4ù6 - 712 - Z ero 1: øifl.?ff 9,ý;; -7~~ ~- -I.1D:V~~b -\ <0 s-V , -ó ~iÞ.iftf (<¡O¡) oJG'ì -ID 'ã ~6,^ 1\-, ~ADJ\JGLJIAA f~ -n r ~ ' {~ -~~~~~u '2-1 'S 1.. 4-( ~\ ve ¡to I nc- 2/'1- 4t7r ~'WI1-b (;1 q4. ìl .2.11./ Þ . IC, ~n· M£'OK w ¡J 1.1\ Sti ,(j··,w.!l. ^' tfli!.1tr S (:. .. ~ (2.. - 1)' cU, 1)c.v~10/ ':>00 &1.- CoA-MNO ~~1I"l-51\/'iÏA- Co '7°3·32.-"'I·~lïJ ~u ólC\'ID, SOD £.L.CAIA'NO (707) So1ß-6166 Ck-AL.,,~NíA cJ.MA, c..¡>. Gv'Z.~S-2 <;C>O 171 C"'''t I "''' teAII~...l".. C¡",vc< CA SC.U ~'{O" I 5'()O 6" G........ !ZuI.1, .sc... -P.. C.(........-c.-. / c.A: :>c> - e 0' SW :go¡<. Z'I J 500 £( ~ ~ I SðM-;«- (,I.JJ..rL c"o., 1J&.u~gJ 'T II' -n:'\ tv "Ír , W- (401,3 )SöS- S'kO'ð (1173) L:Z.<:¡ -$a7ð (Dlt\ìq(p~~ 20- ?L Name Kt1.N '" E7¡f1.¡)IJCI<OH", I support Gate of Heaven Cemetery's appeal of the August 23, 2005 Planning Commission decision which is detailed in Resolution No. 631'1 Address Phone Number Cf <1; éla'2 /_;:-..--, Qo æ~ ,'9'<JðZ''f ~.- fcó7-/7"Z I o;l.. '1 ¿t/P1ædav1 Cß/ff: S {/ ß.J!P e10 i);;;: - t/<J fT) ? 1 /5&ìfi.(tr,¿J" c.r if ò !,() l/rf2-ß/úe La E<é'.5i:Q . ~ 0.JV5("'k'?'::;:"ð 015) . ./. « I> ~~ ;¿l/J, " .LD 'ii3 t..{òÐ-).ç''ì -1-N33 ~ 7 ;;.Lf~- {;S S-ó ~45" - 2-J j-:"'2{ '[.}l GJivj.5 J. -1 ;;z& ¡f- - 'Ý..Ç:- o;52J 6.s0 -'1171-0'13/ /73 s-(f ~'J'¡;¿ 'f¡;; 7 2-.Pl "j '19 ò z.o-13 I support Gate of Heaven Cemetery's appeal ofthe Angust 23, 2005 Planning Commission decision which is detailed in Resolution No. 631 ð Yh\~MILL ~\1<Ntt\) 5D3'- 54<-1 -$I.R 11- Name Phone Number . - -356 - :} ð b S- 1Y7 / %.3. /<;:?'/ i?$ cT ;;J 0£J6 -Cj'LfÇf-!'Jó ~ Ljóg 7/ 'I -/ p-{'y 9/~ - 'ó~'f.3 '5'4 Lfðð -~Y7 Y1C[3 .---/ ~7oST51-3LJII ðð{' '10-1 10(0 '2-0 -14' CLARENCE J. FERRARI, JR JOHN M. ÜTTOBONJ LISA INTRlERl CAPlFTO JOSEPH W. MaL, JR KEVIN J. KELLY JOI--IN M, WUNDERLING KARL-HEINZ LACHNIT JULlED.VEIT FERRARI OTTOBONI r.... LLP Attorneys at Law 333 W. SANTA CLARA ST. SUITE 700 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-1716 Telephone (408) 280·0535 Fax (408)280·0151 , OF COUNSEL THOMAS P. O'DONNELL September 7, 2005 Menlo Park Office Telephone (650) 327·3233 Fæ< (650) 462·0998 WWW.FERRARI·CALAW.COM VIA HAND DELIVERY Kim Smith, City Clerk Mayor and City Counsel City of Cupertino 103 00 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Address: Resolution No. U-2005-04 Robert Lindberg (Gate of Heaven Cemetery operated by the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose) 22555 Cristo Rey Drive 6314 of the Planning Commission Re: Application No. Applicant: Dear Clerk Smith: We represent the above-referenced applicant. The applicant appeals nom the August 23, 2005 decision of the Planning Commission as referenced in the attached letter dated August 26, 2005 (sent to Robert Lindberg from Ciddy Wordell, City Planner) and Resolution No. 6314 attached thereto. I also enclose herewith the check in the amount of $145.00. The appeal of the decision relates specifically to subsections 3 and 4 of the Resolution. Subsection 3 states as follows: Markers and Statuary. The cemetery has been developed as a Memorial Park with flat, horizontal markers. Any new markers shall be horizontal consistent with the original use permit. The existing 36 vertical markers are allowed to remain. Statuary or changes deemed minor shall be approved by the Design Review Committee or as a Director's Minor Modification, as determined by the Director of Community Development. Cemeteries have changed a great deal since 1962, when the Cemetery Permit was first issued. Many members of the public served by the applicant strongly feel the need for upright markers such as those Gate of Heaven Cemetery proposed. Based on input from certain families of those who have been buried at Gate of Heaven, from neighbors, and from the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, Gate of Heaven Cemetery undertook a study of various alternatives relative to minimizing sight lines for upright markers. In lieu of the initially FERRARI:83293.! 2-0 - 15 Letter to City Clerk September 6, 2005 Page 2 of2 proposed back-to-back freestanding upright markers, the new proposal for upright markers, places the markers up against a series of landscaping flagstone retaining walls. The retaining walls will follow the natural slope and contour of the ground, minimizing the visibility issue and maintaining the character of the cemetery. Gate of Heaven Cemetery believes this alternative is a fair and reasonable compromise that accommodates the various concerns raised by those stakeholders in the application. Staff recommended approval of this proposal noting that the proposed areas for the new upright markers "are not visible from the residential or open space areas." The Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District confirmed that the proposed sites for upright markers "are not directly visible from district land." Subsection 4 states: Landscape Plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to implementation of the use permit, with the exception of the Veterans' memorial, which can be installed with landscaping subject to the Director of Community Development. The detailed landscape plan shall include landscaping for the new niche feature and trellis in the Veterans' section. The imposition of a public hearing on such a plan is unnecessary, burdensome, and unfair. While Gate of Heaven Cemetery does not object to review and approval of the landscaping relative to the upright markers area by the Director of Community Development, the landscaping issue as to tree height in the buffer area referenced in Resolution Sections 5 and 6 has already been resolved. To require the approval as to landscaping in Cemetery areas not in dispute is also unnecessary, burdensome, and unfair. Please contact me should you have any questions about the foregoing. Very truly yours, Oh~ ()ifm: M Ottoboni JMO/mb Enclosures cc. Robert Lindberg Gate of Heaven Cemetery Plarnúng Commission Community Development Office V City of Cupertino c/o Ciddy Wordell (via hand delivery) FERRARt83293.! W-1lk> Page 1 of2 Ciddy Wordell Sent: To: From: Mark Edwards [mark@edwardsscharff.com] Monday, November 07, 2005 11:31 AM Patrick Kwok; Richard Lowenthal; Sandra James; Dolly Sandoval; Kris Wang Ciddy Wordell; Steve Piasecki; cbritton@openspace.org; cwoodbury@openspace.org; 'Jonas Roddenberry'; JIMWW@aol.com Subject: Gate of Heaven Appeal· Permit Applic. V-2005-04 - Public Hearing 11-15-05 Cc: Oak Valley Community Awareness Dear Honorable Council Members: Please find the attached letter from Oak Valley Community Awareness (OVCA), the community group formed by the residential neighbors in Oak Valley. The OVCA negotiated with the Cemetery to find mutually acceptable solutions to 7 out of8 changes to the Cemetery's Use Permit - which were approved by the Planning Commission on 8/23/05, As you know, the Oak Valley residential neighborhood is comprised of appro x, 170 homes built on land sold in the late 1990s by the San Jose Catholic Diocese - who owns and operates the Gate of Heaven Cemetery - to the O'Brien Group, for the development of a residential home community, Both the Gate of Heaven and the Oak Valley neighbors are neighbors to Rancho San Antonio Park and Open Space Preserve, the most popular (and perhaps most beautiful) park and preserye operated by the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD). The OVCA coordinated with the MROSD throughout the negotiation process. The attached letter discusses the OVCA's position on the Gate of Heaven's Appeal of the Planning Commission's 5-0 decision of 8/23/05. In that decision, the Planning commission (i) accepted and approved 7 of the 8 proposed changes to the Cemetery's use permit; (ii) denied No.8 - Vertical Gravestones; and (iii) required Planning Commission's review of the proposed landscaping changes at the Cemetery. (As you know, Gate of Heaven is permitted to use only Horizontal markers under the use permit granted in 1962. This was the condition under which the Diocese was permitted to develop the Gate of Heaven land as a cemetery.) On behalf of the OVCA and Oak Valley neighbors, thank you for your support. Very truly yours, Mark Mark S. Edwards, Esq. Edwards & ScharffI.I.P 22 J I Park Boulevard Palo Alto, CA 94306 Ph: 650.330.1000; Fax: 650.330.100 I rnark@edwardsscharffcom www.edwardsscharff.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email isONI.Yforthepersonsintheheader.Unlessotherwisenoted.it (and any attachments) contains infonnation which is confidential, privileged, or exempt from disclosure under relevant law. lfyou 1117105 20-"11 Oak Valley Community Awareness November 7, 2005 Cupertino City Council 10350 Torre A venue Cupertino,CA 95014 Re: Gate of Heaven Permit Applic. U-200S-04 - Public Hearing Nov 15,2005 Dear Honorable Council Members: We respectfully request the honorable members of the Cupertino City Council to support and uphold the Planning Commission's 5-0 decision of August 23, 2005. During that meeting, the Planning Commlssion approved 7 of the 8 requested changes to the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, but denied the Cemetery's request to change their current use permit to allow installation of vertical gravestones. We also respectfully request that the honorable council members support and uphold the Planning Commission's 5-0 decision requiring Planning Commission review of landscaping changes at the Cemetery. As neighbors of the Gate of Heaven, we have worked closely with Cemetery management and with other members ofthe local community to reach agreement on 7 of the 8 proposed changes in Permit U-2005-04. These extensive efforts have resulted in a much better understanding of our overall community's needs, and the agreements reached were submitted to the Planning Commission Staff an August 11,2005. On August 23, 2005, the Planning Commission approved these agreements in a 5-0 decision. Opposition to Vertical Gravestones On the eighth issue, we have consistently and strongly opposed the Cemetery's request to change the operating permit to allow vertical gravestones. Opposing signatures were collected from approximately 145 residents of Oak Valley. Approximately 80 more signatures were collected from Rancho San Antonio Park visitors, The Mid-Penlnsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) agrees with this position. The MROSD wrote two letters to the Planning Commission during the review and hearing process, and spoke in opposition to the proposed vertical gravestones at the August 23'· public hearing. The Planning Commission agreed to oppose vertical gravestones in a 5-0 vote on August 23. As a community, we believe that the proposed installation of vertical gravestones would: · Dramatically alter the character of the neighborhood, · Detrimentally impact the neighborhood and surrounding properties, · Result in more concrete, less greenery, · Result in potential safety, drainage, and handicap access issues, and · Turn the most beautiful Memorial Park in California into a Graveyard. W-l~ \. f Oak Valley Community Awareness -.,.-.--. Additionally, contrary to statements in the Cemetery's appeal letter. there will be a definite visual impaet to the neighbors and Open Space users. The proposed vertical gravestones will be a visual blight. directly viewable from: (i) the new Hammond-Snyder Loop Trail; (ii) the hi storie De Anza Knoll Trail; (iii) Cristo Rey Drive; and (iv) the houses on Hammond Way. Planning Commission Requirement to review Landscaping plans The Cemetery appealed the Planning Corrunission's requirement to hold reviews of the Cemetery Landscaping Plan. We strongly support the Planning Commission's decision, and disagree with the Cemetery's claim that the requirement is "unnecessary, burdensome and unfair." On the contrary, Planning Commission review is reasonable, impQrtant, and necessary to protect the neighbors and the character of the neighborhood. This requirement was prompted in part by both: . The Cemetery's unapproved removal of the 12 feet high oleanders between the cemetery und the homes, which served as an essential sight and sound buffer between the Cemetery and the nearby homes. This wus done early in 2005, without submitting a permit, to the detriment ~)f the neighbors. Removing the buffer arca landscaping has resulted in ongoing disruptions to both the neighbors and visitors to the Cemetery; and . The Cemetery's proposed replacement buffer vegetation. The specific trees proposed must be revicwed for appropriateness. OVCA research has dctennined that after annual pruning to the spcciJicd 12 foot hcight limits. these trees may end up as stumps, and may be ineffective as replacements for the oleanders. On bchalf of the neighborhood and Oak. Valley Community Awarcness, thank. you for your support. Respec~fUZ s~ ~~1" 22238 Hammond Way s-~ cc: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City of Cupertino Mr. Steve Piasecki, City of Cupertino Mr. Craig Britton. MROSD Ms. Cathy Woodbury, MROSD Mr. Jonas Roddenberry, MROSD 'LO -1&\ EXHIBIT G CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application Summary: Application: U-2005-04 Applicant: Robert Lindberg (Gate of Heaven Cemetery) Location: 22555 Cristo Rey Drive Use Permit to allow vertical markers and statuary at an existing cemetery RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss this agenda item and continue it to the meeting of August 23, 2005. BACKGROUND: 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. The applicant requests that the City of Cupertino grant a use permit for upright markers in four areas, and five other features (see the Plan Set): » A veterans' marker and niche features » A new niche feature » Life-size statue of the Pieta » Crucifix » 36 existing upright markers Staff believes that the use permit review by the Planning Commission will take longer than one meeting. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission utilize the June 14, 2005 meeting to become familiar with the applicant's proposal and hear public concerns. Then the Commission should continue the item to the August 23, 2005 meeting to enable the applicant to work with the community to address their concerns and issues. When the application returns to the Planning Commission, the Commission will be better prepared to take action on the proposal. DISCUSSION: Proposal The elements of the proposal are discussed below. Community issues have been identified through neighborhood meetings, letters and phone calls (outreach is 7-0 -SSb U-2005-04 Page 2 discussed below). The fundamental concerns raised by the community are the visual impacts of the proposed changes and the change of character of the cemetery. The visual impacts are discussed in the table. A video of the affected area of the cemetery and adjacent properties will be shown at the meeting. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION IMPACTS PROPOSED MITIGATION Veterans' The Veterans' markers These features are A row of evergreen markers and consist of six 6 foot visible to trees is proposed niche features high monuments, approximately three between the Veterans' approximately 30' from residences from their markers and the the property line of second story property line (see Sheet adjacent residences, in windows. 3A). They will be a new concrete plaza. maintained at a height The niche feature of 12-14 feet, which consists of two 6'8" will block views of the columns 12' from the markers, but will not property line. These obstruct views of the features are located in hills from the adjacent the northeast section of homes. the cemetery, and are adjacent to residences. An existing flagpole was reinstalled at the same height as it was before. Upright The upright markers are The upright markers in The applicant proposes markers proposed in two general the southeast area will evergreen screening on areas: southeast area and not be visible to the northeast edge. southwest area. There residents on Canyon Additional landscape would be 4,393 markers Oak Way, but will be screening would need on a total of 3 acres. The visible, at a distance markers are 30" high, 28" from open space lands. to be provided on the wide and 6" deep. They west edge of this area. would be placed in rows The upright markers in Low shrubbery should with two markers "back the southwest area will to back." be visible from open be provided around space lands and the proposed markers residences on to reduce visibility. Hammond Way. There is an existing area The existing markers Low shrubbery should of 36 upright markers in are visible at a distance be provided around the south center of the to residents on the existing upright cemetery. Staff can find Hammond Way. no evidence that these markers to reduce markers were approved visibility . bv the county. 7-0 - 1:>\ U-2005-04 Page 3 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION IMPACTS PROPOSED MITIGATION Niche feature A niche feature The niche feature will Four laurel trees consisting of a 10-foot be visible at a (evergreen, growing to high trellis and two 6 distance from open 12-40 feet tall) are foot-high niche space lands. proposed at each columns would be corner of the feature. located in the middle of a flat-marker area. Pieta Statue A 6' high bronze statue The statue would not would be located south be visible from of the lake in at an adjacent properties. intersection in the center of the cemetery. It is six feet high and six feet wide. Crucifix A 32' foot high crucifix The crucifix would Four redwood trees, is proposed in the be visible from the 28' feet high at time of northeast section of the residents on Canyon planting, are proposed cemetery, next to the Oak Way and from to screen the cross. office. The material is the open space bronze. property . Cemetery Data The applicant provided the following cemetery data: TOTAL SOLD PROPERTY TOTAL AVAILABLE: APPLICATION WOULD ALLOW: TOTAL PROPERTY: PERCENT OF UPRIGHT MARKERS TO TOTAL BURIALS: PERCENT OF UPRIGHT ACRES TO TOTAL ACREAGE: PERCENT OF UPRIGHT ACRES TO 25.85 DEVELOPED ACRES: 15,403 units (includes all types) 4,509 (includes all types) 13,204 flat type markers/burials 4,429 upright markers/burials 37,545 UNITS 12% 5.4% 8.4% Community Outreach In March, the Gate of Heaven Cemetery sent a letter inviting adjacent neighbors to meet with them about their proposal. The mailing list included the Santa Clara County Park and Recreation Department and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 7-0 - Cò'1- U-2005-04 Page 4 (MROSD). City staff invited residents from the Oak Valley neighborhood to a City- convened meeting on May 18. The purpose of the meeting was to foster communication on the application and to explore what issuês neighbors wanted addressed and possibly mitigated. Notes from the meeting are enclosed (Exhibit B). Letters, emails and petitions from residents and MROSD are enclosed; staff verbally received information from County Park staff that they have no concerns about the proposal. Cemetery personnel provided copies of statements and signatures solicited by the cemetery in support of the Veterans' markers (Exhibit C). Visual Impacts and Change in Character of Cemeterv Visual impacts of the use permit features are identified in the table above. Additional landscape screening is suggested to further reduce visual impacts. The Planning Commission may consider additional mitigation if it is needed, such as reducing the size or areas of proposed upright markers or relocating or eliminating proposed statuary or niches. Following discussion at this meeting and at the direction of the Planning Commission, staff will pursue any additional mitigation requested. Principles for Discussion The applicant's proposal and neighbors' concerns raise the issue of competing property rights, interests and expectations. The Commission should focus on the degree of change that can be reasonably accommodated without severely compromising the interests of the applicant, neighbors and visitors to the cemetery. The Commission may want to focus on the following questions in considering this application: 1) To what degree does the application and landscape screening alter the low profile character of the cemetery as viewed from the public trails, streets and neighboring homes? 2) Can the headstones and statuary be reasonably hidden from view through their strategic placement and landscape screening? 3) Do the application and landscape screening unreasonably obstruct views of surrounding open space across the cemetery lands from adjacent public trails, streets and neighboring homes? 20-'63 U-2005-04 Page 5 Enclosures: Exhibit A - Cemetery's Santa Clara County Use Permit Exhibit B - Neighborhood Meeting Notes 5/18/05 Exhibit C - Memorial Day Survey Exhibit D - View of cemetery from open space lands (looking east) Exhibit E - Rendering of Crucifix Exhibit F - Example of Upright Section Public Communication Letter of Application Plan Set Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ G:pIanning( pdreport( pc(U-200S-Q4 lO- ~4 Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 20 June 14, 2005 Chair W g: · Comme d to the public that it was an emotional issue in that the public h ring has been closed. 10 e will be other opportunities for the public to return and reac 0 the Director's comments; h 's just making suggestions on a good compromise and ou are entitled to disagree. There e other fonns to do that and decorum is needed an espect for everyone's recommendations. Mr. Piasecki: Under the rule I just described, you wouldn't put them there. · rt of the idea of these trails, is to enhance the creeks themselves. Com. Chen: · It is a difficult position to m e, but I do see the difference been sidewalk and the trail; the trail is open up for the citywid se, but 1 also understan he concerns of the neighborhoods that will be directly impacted by tlì trail. · I think we should keep our focus on ecific issues different kinds of suggestions in tying up e safe for both users and the neighbors. · I wouldn't put the two-thirds vote in the langu . ust to support it for no reason at all. I think safety should remain the focus in reviewing y tral Chair Wong: · The issue is sensitive regarding urb trails. I think all the do support trails in general. Rura ails are easier to support, bu ith urban trails, especially when they abut your home and operty investment, people get emob al. · As staff said, there have be urban trails done in Almaden Valley, an os Gatos has been very controversial, and at e end some;: were successful and some folks don From the sentiment heard in this r om, it sounds like we don't want it. · I support Vice ChaO Miller's suggestion that it should be two-thirds, but thl s just a recommendation. there is not a majority of the Planning Commission, you can go 0 the City Council to ake the recommendation as well. · What you are uggesting is specifically the Regnart Creek Trail and it is something you need to go to Ci Council and say that you don't like it for this reason; but if you look at the policy staff su sted regarding safety and security, I think that the neighborhood can make a logical argu t that this is not the right thing to do for your particular situation. · It· not the end of the road, continue what you are doing, but you need to respect the mmission, and the Council as well as staff recommendation. They are just trying to find a solution to make it a win-win situation. ich is safety and we can definitely use language to make sure that a trail is safe Chair Wong: · Noted that the General Plan application would be continued until June 15, at 6:00 p.m. followed by a special meeting on June 23, and if needed, a special meeting on Monday, June 27 before the final recommendation on Tuesday, June 28th. Chair Wong declared a recess. 3. U-2005-04 Robert Lindberg (Gate of Heaven Cemetery) 22555 Cristo Rey Drive Use Pennit to allow vertical markers and statuary at an existing cemetery. ZO-S5 Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 21 June 14, 2005 Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report: o Reviewed the background of the application for a use permit to allow vertical markers and statuary in an existing cemetery, as set forth in the staff report. o Explained that the cemetery had a use permit through Santa Clara County and when annexed into Cupertino, a use permit was not previously granted through Cupertino. There was architectural review for some of the improvements, but not a use permit because they wanted to change one of the conditions since the County use permit. They came to Cupertino and applied for a use permit with the city. The use permit is to allow upright markers because the Santa Clara County use permit did not. o Illustrated the site plan which showed the proposed changes: a veterans' marker area, an upright marker areas, niche feature, Pieta statue, and the crucifix. o A video presentation was shown illustrating the affected areas of the cemetery and adjacent properties. o Potential questions might be: · How does the proposal affect the low profile character of the cemetery? · How could the improvements be accommodated if they were reasonably hidden from view? · Does the application and the screening unreasonably obstruct views? · How the change might be reasonably accommodated without severely compromising the interest of the applicant, neighbors and visitors to the cemetery. o The area was zoned as part of the whole master plan for Oak Valley and is Planned Development. It is not legal non-conforming. o Relative to the history of the cemetery, Ms. Wordell said that in talking with County planners, they did not have any records; the original conditions of approval were the only records that the cemetery and County had. There are no records of any additional architecture review after that and no written history on what was behind the condition of approval. o She said she had no evidence on file that vertical markers were permitted at the cemetery. . The recommendation is to discuss the item and continue the application to the August 23, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Wong: o Need clarity because many emails were received regarding the application relative to the veteran's memorial. . Regarding the process, did they go through the proper procedure to get the proper permits; that should be reviewed. There were also Some concerns about construction in the evening. Ms. Wordell: o That area of change was not on the use permit site plan that the cemetery submitted to us; at the same time they were planning to construct it, but had not included it and they should have, and they realized that they should have. In the meantime, they ordered those markers and said that the veterans were expecting them for Memorial Day. We allowed them to put them up temporarily for Memorial Day and remove them after; and that is what they did. o There were letters handed out at the cemetery on Veterans' Day which asked people to submit their comments and they submitted them to us as part of their packet. Bob Linberg, Gate of Heaven Cemetery: o Introduced Bruce Hill, landscape architect who would speak later about landscaping. o He explained different traditions in honoring the deceased. People who come here are in a state of grieving; it is the only catholic cemetery in the area and in order to serve the families Zo-f9<o Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 22 June 14,2005 as best we can, we need to be able to better fulfill their needs which is the reason this was started. · The cemetery is dynamic: over the long term by its nature it needs to adapt to meet the varying circumstances of what is going on now and in the future. · It is for the families who asked for a more catholic identity; that is who we are primarily serving and they have asked us repeatedly that we have an easier to see and easy to understand religious identity to the cemetery; presently there is almost none. It is for those same people that requested that catholic or religious identity that we are requesting to put in the Pieta. · At the May meeting there was a lot of vocal opposition to a 32 foot crucifix with the screening; we have decided that a 28 foot crucifix would be more appropriate. As staff mentioned, the 60 inch box trees for screening are 28 feet tall and wil1 be planted whether or not the proposal is approved. · We appreciate the unique character of the cemetery and the expectations of those with family members buried there to not disrupt the existing sections, which have flat memorials. It is for the families who wish to bury their loved ones and remember them with the traditional upright memorials that we request to place them on the edges of the cemetery. As shown in the site plan, there is nothing toward the middle. · He noted that they were back-to-back markers, with a 20 foot section of open space, two more back-to-back markers, and another 20 foot section of open space. It will not be the typical cemetery look which we do not want in this environment and others don't want it either. · There are several things we were planning to mitigate: a hedge along the back of the upper one; several of them will be close to a fence which borders the trail, which will have climbing roses to cover the fences. The upright memorials we are requesting to cover three acres which is only 5.4% of the total usable cemetery land. With this request we are currently at 25 and this would develop us up to 36, which is 8.4% of the total space devoted to uprights, and they are at the far edges of the cemetery. · For the veterans and their families we request the addition of the service monuments, celebrating the branches of our armed forces and remembering our POW s and MIAs. · He discussed the landscape plan to replace the oleanders which were removed last fall. He said the requests were in the normal course of operating a cemetery and were in response to requests from families. · We have listened to the concerns of the residents as well as recognized several points where site lines might be an issue, and have addressed them. We found out that there were at least two properties that have a substantial view into the cemetery; there is mature foliage along the section and we could plant some redwood trees to screen off the view into the cemetery from Hammond and not affect the view into the hills. · There was some concern that you could actually see into the cemetery from the turnaround. There is a fence line that will be planted and the biggest change is going to be what people see from the open space, and the trail looking down into the corporation yard is in need of some planting. Regardless of the outcome of the permit process, oaks and redwoods will be planted so that people using the trails will not see the corporation yard. We will also make an effort to move the equipment. · He distributed a copy of a map. The issue of open space and the relationship to the cemetery has been raised by many persons, and we believe this can be better understood with some historical perspective. The gray areas on the map are land (133 acres) that was donated by the church to the open space as part of the transaction when the O'Brien Group developed. Of that, 128 acres came out of the cemetery. It is important when looking at the cemetery in relation to the open space that we realize that the current open space was created from the cemetery; the cemetery was not carved out of the open space. · We feel that the belief the cemetery is necessarily part of the open space doesn't hold because we are a cemetery. We believe that the relationship of the cemetery and the open space has ZO-~l Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 23 June 14,2005 already been altered far more by the existing 20 and 24 foot high mausoleum buildings which border the open space and the 34 foot high chapel, than any impact from the permit application requesting 30 inch high upright memorials. · There are large buildings bordering the open space and these buildings are more evident in the open space than 30 inch high memorials are going to be spaced 20 feet apart. Lastly, we thought we had a positive meeting on May 18th and a lot of things were discussed. It was pointed out that we took over the responsibility for these ponds at the front of the canyon oak area around the turnaround; there are two ponds that have been there for four or five years. Sadly, we have done a subpar job in maintaining those ponds, part of the reason being that the ponds are not well constructed and we have a budget that was given to us in an agreement with the O'Brien Group for only $5,000 per year to be expended on keeping the ponds maintained. We are currently running at about $21,000 and it is anticipated that we will get to $24,000 to maintain them this year. We contacted a landscape architect who has expertise in ponds, to give us an understanding of what the problem is; he is also going to develop several solutions and we will meet with the neighbors to see if we can work on the problem so that the ponds are maintained properly and we are not spending $24,000 on a $5,000 budget. · Relative to the 36 existing upright markers, I found the original director who did the original bui1dout. The contracts started in 1972 thru 1975 and after 1975 anyone that purchased a contract there was not allowed to put up an upright marker. We honored contracts when people came back after 1975. There is no justification for the markers; there are no records. Vice Chair Miller: · Several people wrote letters stating that they chose the cemetery for their loved ones because of the horizontal markers. He asked the applicant to comment. Mr. Lindberg: · Reiterated that they appreciated the unique character of the cemetery and the expectations of those families with family members buried there to not disrupt the existing sections with flat markers. Nothing would go into an existing section that already has flat markers. · Noted that Alta Mesa in Los Altos did it effectively with upright markers around the edges and flat markers in the middle. He said they would not do anything to compromise that. · Said that only one section in the southeast comer has uprights close to a residential area, up against an 8 foot high fence which will be covered by climbing roses. There will be no sight line to those from any of the homes. · Answered commissioners' questions about the niches, veterans' markers and funding for the veterans burial area. Chair Wong opened the public hearing for public comment. Mark Edwards, Peralta Ct.: · Moved to Oak Valley one year ago. · Opposed to the application. · We purchased our homes in reliance of the open space nature of the area and as you know the cemetery has been a memorial park with flat markers. Rancho San Antonio is a big draw. We feel that the proposed changes represent a significant paradigm shift in the way the cemetery is operating now and we believe that those changes affect the neighborhood as a whole, the open space, and will impact the residents and make the area less desirable, which will negatively impact property values. · We would not have purchased the homes had we seen this on the horizon. · The resulting impact on the character of the area will be negative. 20-68 Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 24 June 14,2005 · There was a long process leading to the sale of the land to the O'Brien Group and the parcel split, etc. · He said he contacted David Doyle, a former Planning Commissioner who was on the Commission at the time the O'Brien Group application was acted upon. He was surprised at what had happened went on to inform him that the land was all one parcel which required a parcel split and the Planning Commission and City Council were very conscientious and deliberate, and they approved the parcel split and development only upon the condition that all the constituents would be bound to honor the open space and park-like nature of the area. · There are many elements adopted in Oak Valley to honor this and to require this; as well as very strict CC&Rs that the residents are bound by. · We have tremendous support from the neighborhood in keeping the cemetery the way it is. There is a petition ITom the residents in the staff packet. · The Mid Peninsula Open Space Regional Open Space District also opposes the application. · The change is not in keeping with the agreement everyone signed when the property was split. · Pointed out that the homeowners signing up for the covenant, codes and restrictions have no ability to change their use of the property and we do not feel that the cemetery should either. · Changing the character of the pröperty at this time would be problematic long term as it might establish a precedent for adjoining parcels. · We request that the Planning Commission stay true to the legacy, vision and cohesive open space requirements upon which the parcel was allowed to be divided and land developed, and deny the application. Vice Chair Miller: · If the cemetery effectively screens what they are doing so that you cannot see it, is there an objection? Mr. Edwards: · It is a park now except for a few vertical markers which were (illegally) there when my home was purchased. · I think it is an issue; we all signed on to live next to a pastoral type of memorial park and we didn't sign on to live next to something recognized to be with markers as a graveyard, and obviously it is a cemetery and that is fine; but it is a certain type of cemetery and it fits in with the whole area. Vice Chair Miller: · The CC&Rs, that is just the residential neighborhoods; the cemetery did not sign up for the CC&Rs, but it has the 1962 use permit requiring a memorial park with flat markers. Talia Brinkman, speaking on behalf of Carol Lin: · Opposed to the application. · I feel the proposed vertical structures, tombstones, crucifix and other statues will change the character and aesthetics of our community. Even if the structures are fully screened from public view, and I am sure the current plan will not achieve that, it sets the precedent for future installation of vertical markers in areas that are highly visible. Furthermore the proposed screening of the crucifix and veterans' structures are inadequate; it will take years before the screening trees grow to the height and breadth necessary to properly screen structures from residents' view. · It doesn't seem possible to screen the vertical markers. I request the cemetery's proposal to be modified be denied. 2C)-ev1 Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 25 June 14,2005 Peggy Jacket, Oak Valley resident: · I request that the city deny the cemetery's use permit to allow vertical markers and statuary. · The existing permit was in effect when we purchased our homes in Oak Valley and we relied on the City of Cupertino to enforce it. Six years later I still rely on the city to enforce the existing code. I recognize the right of the cemetery to develop its property, but only according to the city's existing permit. · Please deny the application. · If Com. Miller were to ask me if the screening of the proposed changes would be acceptable, I would say No; what we based our decision to purchase not on screened vertical markers. · In response to Chair Wong's question, said that she did not find any of the application acceptable. Kim James,Canyon Oak Way, (speaking for Cara Deareosta): · The catholic cemetery is addressing the city of Cupertino under the guise of a request for permission for improvements. This is not a request for improvements. This is a request for a complete invalidation of their original and existing zoning regulation. · To characterize this as improvement would be identical to my next door neighbor and I wanting to make an improvement by putting up a 30 story office building on our residential property, and unfortunately the city of Cupertino seems to be taking the approach that there needs to be some compromised response. · I ask you then if you would allow my neighbor and I to put up a 15 story building on our residential property because you would feel that you could not say No to a request for a disastrous change in zoning. In the package you received rrom us last week, there are over 220 signatures rrom residents of Oak Valley and the surrounding area; you also received in the package through the letter by individuals the details of where the cemetery has been dishonest in their dealings with the city and the Oak Valley community and has consistently spun this request to dispose of their zoning agreements and yet the group who has been completely with the city, which is Oak Valley, is the one that has been ignored. · We ask that you say No to this request in its entirety and stop the illegal construction immediately and immediately require the catholic cemetery to tear out over 100 illegal structures that are outside the current zoning regulations Kim James, Canyon Oak Way, (speaking on her own behalf): · I do agree with Bob, our area is not dynamic but it does not need to adapt to a few people. I would like to know from him if we have another neighborhood meeting, why we were not informed of his being willing to compromise; why he has never responded to us as to whether or not the people who are requesting these are a majority or minority. I asked him personally at the neighborhood meeting who proposed the 32 foot crucifix and he said that he had. I would like to know where this is coming rrom; if he is walking in here after 14 months on the job requesting a permit to improve the cemetery because it is a business. I agree with Cara; we have our CC&Rs, they have a permit, we bought our houses knowing that this was permitted to be a flat horizontal park-like setting. We have our children coming to the park on a daily basis and the crucifix rrom Canyon Oak Way looks right at those trees. When he says they are going to put up a 28 foot crucifix with 28 foot trees, trees are triangular, crucifixes are not. Javier Swartz,Canyon Oak Way: · I agree with Mr. Lynberg that it is a unique cemetery and this is exactly what we looked at when we decided to buy our house. I idea ofliving next to a cemetery was not something that attracted me there, we went and looked at it and were made aware of the constraints they had to keep it the way it is and we feel comfortable with the way it was. · It is a unique one, I am not catholic; ifI was I would probably buy a contract. 'Z.O-00 Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 26 June 14,2005 · Relative to pushing the vertical markers to the edge; you mentioned that they will be somewhat adjacent to some of the houses. I do not like it; it was not the deal when I signed when I bought my home, and it is very unfair. · As to the proposal that he will somehow hide 4,000 markers, I find it unbelievable. I have 20 redwood trees in my yard trying to hide the PG&E plant, and I wish they would grow that fast, but they don't and they are tapered and it will likely be another 20 years before I stop seeing those high voltage towers. · I request that you deny the application. Michelle Hocker, Canyon Oak Road: · Illustrated photos of the location of her home in relation to the cemetery. · Showed a photo of the view from the cemetery office. None of the proposed changes will be within the view of the office window. · The new flagpole is affixed to a platform, making it higher than the previous one, inserted in the ground. · Our home is now directly abutted against the platforms that the monuments were on Memorial Day. We can see the markers that are 6 foot, 8 inches high, and 18 inches deep · Showed a photo of Calvary Cemetery in the South Bay, an example of what the residents do not want. · Pointed out that in the past, the cemetery has made a concerted effort to keep structures low. · Said that she has family members buried in the cemetery; she honors veterans, and her philosophical belief is that all are created equal in birth and death and these markers that you see in front of you to me symbolize tht very idea; they are all the same. · Not opposed to the expansion, but requests that the cemetery preserve its park-like environment. It is important that Cupertino continues to preserve its open spaces and park-like environment. · Would prefer another way to honor the veterans, with lower markers other than the proposed markers. Katherine Honghton, Hammond Way: · From our backyard we have a view of the existing and illegally placed vertical markers. · We will also have a view of at least one of the areas slated for vertical grave markers as proposed by the cemetery. · Illustrated photos of various views from backyards of the proposed vertical markers. · While all of these proposed changes are disturbing to us, what is most distressing is what could happen in the years beyond this proposal. · None of the views are what the homeowners bargained for when their homes were purchased; they were told that the cemetery would remain quiet, serene and park-like. We believed that the cemetery would respect its neighbors and open spaces adjacent to it by expanding in a consistent and responsible way. Instead the cemetery is now trying to turn its property into a Las Vegas style cemetery. It is no longer enough to offer a peaceful park-like setting that fits in with the open spaces that surround it; it is no longer good enough to be the good neighbor it has been for a number of years. For some reason, the cemetery wants to make a statement to its customers and turn its property into an obvious, garish and ostentatious cemetery located in the midst of a neighborhood with over 200 existing homes. Like Las Vegas, customers will be pouring in to see the bigger and better monuments, statues and tombstones. · These proposed changes would be fine if they were in a non-residential area within Santa Clara County, but the cemetery is right in the middle of our Oak Valley neighborhood. · Making these changes would have a negative effect on all of us because Oak Valley would become a less desirable place to live if there is a conspicuous cemetery next door. By '20 -0 I Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 27 June 14,2005 allowing the cemetery to do as it pleases, the homeowners will bear the brunt as our property values depreciate even in the midst of a strong and vibrant California real estate market. As a result, I strongly urge you to not approve the use permits submitted by the cemetery. Ron Muir, Oak Canyon resident: · Illustrated photos showing the full impact of the proposal on the homeowners' properties · Our family attends church every Sunday, but we don't want a 28 foot crucifix in the playground area of the park. · Four 28 foot trees is not sufficient for screening. · There is a history of the cemetery not following procedures and approvals, and I commend the Planning Commission for identifying that since the beginning. · Said there was an issue with the pond and landscape issues where the crew had shut down and neglected the maintenance of the pond and property, which represents a health concern. · The planting and ponds need to be maintained as they were attractive. Jim Wheeler, Hammond Way: · One of two homes overlook the cemetery. · There were trees across the street on the Santa Clara County park property which blocked the view; however, they died and had to be removed. His view now is the 36 markers. · The Gate of Heaven Cemetery is one of most beautiful and peaceful cemeteries in the Bay Area. It is very fortunate to be located in an area filled with huge mountain vistas next door to open space park and at the heart of Oak Valley's 180 homes. · At a recent community awareness meeting where the Director of Catholic Cemeteries spoke, the statement was made that the proposed changes are necessary because the cemetery is not properly serving its community. At the same meeting, he stated that the number of inground funerals held at the cemetery currently 500 per year which is average for the cemeteries in this area. Using horizontal markers under the current permit, they are successful at competing with other cemeteries in the area. · There was another statement made in a publication that the cemetery is not well known and it needs to be improved. The cemetery has an ideal location and is well known; the number of vehicles going past the cemetery has increased dramatically over the past 10 years. · The cemetery today has more visibility than it has had in its entire history; people are always visiting Rancho San Antonio Park. · I oppose the cemetery being given the right to install vertical tombstones after operating successfully for over 40 years without them. I feel somewhat betrayed by the cemetery after the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Jose sold their land to a developer and then waited until all the homes in Oak Valley were sold before asking to change their operating permit. · There are several other reasons I feel betrayed. The original permit issued by Santa Clara County in 1962 was a well thought out document. By stating that the cemetery be developed as a memorial park with flat markers, it guaranteed that the cemetery would have a minimal impact on the beautiful surroundings. From 1962 to 1989 the many students who attended classes at St. Joseph's seminary did not have to look at vertical markers or vertical tombstones; they saw only horizontal markers with a beautiful park-like cemetery. · In 1977 when the Santa Clara County Parks Department purchased the 130 acres of land forming the basis for Rancho San Antonio Park, the cemetery maintained operations to the original permit so visitors to Rancho San Antonio Park did not have to look at vertical tombstones as they hiked the trails. As a result the many articles written about the trail included high praise for the tremendous views available from the trails. In 2003 after purchasing one of the homes built in Oak Valley and after seeing a tree removed and suddenly noticing that there appeared to be a change in my viewpoint outside my house, as the freeway 'lO-C\'L Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 28 June 14, 2005 obstacles die out, you will have ongoing disputes about these 4,000 + markers; that is going to be something you need to be prepared for and will happen. o In 2003 after purchasing one of the last homes built in Oak Valley, I talked with my neighbors and asked about the cemetery. After hearing their concerns, I met with the Director of Catholic Cemeteries, Father Enrico Hernandez. When I met with him, he specifically described the future direction of the cemetery; he stated it wanted to be a good neighbor to us and would continue to expand away ÍÌ"om the homes, more toward the mountains. There was no discussion about vertical tombstones being used in the future. o In summary, from 1962 through 2005, we heard a consistent message from the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, which was from the beginning to be a good neighbor to all those impacted by its presence. o To the Planning Commission I ask do not let the Gate of Heaven betray that long-standing commitment to being a good neighbor to our community. o The second proposed change I want to address is the cemetery's attempt to install a veterans' plaza at an area directly behind the homes on Canyon Oak Way. I am from an army family, which has consistently made sacrifices in each generation to fend freedom by serving our country; and would state that in the space where it is currently defined in a very limited area, directly behind people's homes where there are only 23 available plots to bury additional people in the veterans' area, is the wrong place to put a veterans' plaza. Lee Stevens, Serra Street: o We are not directly in line of sight of the cemetery's plans, but it does impact us as a neighborhood. o It will impact our property values and the way people respond to the community. We knew there was a cemetery there. Everyone has to follow the rules; and some people cannot do what they want to because of the restrictions. That should apply to the cemetery also. o The process should have been followed and hopefully ÍÌ"om this point it will be. o I do not object to the veterans' memorial, but wish things were of a smaller scale. I am happy to see that the cemetery is willing to compromise because at the May meeting all responses were No, when asked if they were willing to take suggestions from the neighbors. . I hope there is community support and regulations will continue to be followed as they are laid out by the city. Fred Fry, Canyon Oak Way: o Things aren't very visible ÍÌ"om my home, but if I had known buying the home that they planned to install the vertical markers, I don't think I would have bought the home. o I am Catholic. and a veteran and don't see the need for the changes. It had a park-like setting and I would like it to stay that way. Out of sight, out of mind is my motto. The celebrations can occur on Veterans' Day and Memorial Day, but it should go back to the peaceful setting at other times. o If a resident put up a large structure, they would have to tear it down; but that same resident would be ostracized if they insisted the vertical markers, illegally placed, be removed. o I am opposed to the application. Calvin Doe, Manzanita Court: o Do not have a direct view of the cemetery, but am concerned that there will be adverse economic externalities with this proposal. . My simple thesis is supply and demand will drive property value. Shared his purchasing experience. Before he decided to spend $2.2 million and $25,000 in annual property tax, he did a lot of homework. One of the things I asked my realtor to do spend some time to narrow 2D --<B Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 29 June 14, 2005 down the list of homes I should consider and came close to not considering the homes at Oak Valley because of the fact that it was next to a cemetery and a railroad. Our family did not object to living next to a cemetery because of its park-like setting. o I wish the cemetery would take the steps to involve the community and involve all the adverse impacts for consideration. I don't think you have enough information today. Iman Nesh, Canyon Oak Way: o I have been listening to all these presentations and I agree with what the speakers said. o We received a letter from the cemetery stating that they were going to make some changes. They made the determination of who in the neighborhood would be affected. o You have asked people if there was any part of the proposal that would be acceptable. I did not feel the last meeting went that well, but now we are being offered the opportunity to provide our comments and there seems to be an opportunity for compromise when there was not at the May meeting. o I would ask that the city hold the cemetery to the agreements that were in place even though other possibilities may have been explored in other cemeteries. Keith Hocker, Canyon Oak Road: o It is clear that you have heard that the original permit that the cemetery operated on was for it to be developed like a park. I feel it was done so because of its proximity to the open space, the nearby hills and large undeveloped tracts of lands. This was a wise and just decision. o We are hoping to preserve the park-like setting. o Allowing vertical markers and statuary monuments will change the setting of the cemetery; one only has to look at Calvary Cemetery to see an extreme example of this. o It has been stated that some customers want vertical markers; but this is not a reason to change the permit. A cemetery with 500 burials a year, approximately 1.5 per day, seems to be doing a brisk business. . No one is trying to stop the cemetery rrom doing a business, only stop the plans to turn the cemetery into a typical kind of cemetery. o When we first moved in, we thought it would be a nice, quiet neighbor. Unfortunately the traffic and noise has told us otherwise. The typical operations show us that it is in fact a business. However, it does not have to look like one. o To that end, over 220 people have signed a petition stating this, 160 homes which is about 60% of the homes polled. This gets my attention as these people are willing to go on record and state this. It has also been stated that we might be anti-veterans; that is not true. It is the size and scope of the monuments that look completely out of character with the surrounding area and the cemetery itself. . Weare trying to preserve the grounds, the open space the surrounding hills. oWe did see the monuments on Memorial Day; they are quite large and out of place including the two large niches which were not quite visible on any plans we received. o No disrespect intended, but this is not a veterans' issue. It is an issue to the opposition of erecting large structures and statuaries and monuments throughout a cemetery where we are hoping to maintain the park-like setting as defined by the 1962 permit. Lori Ng, a visitor to the Gate of Heaven Cemetery: o Not an Oak Canyon resident. o I learned of the proposed change rrom a recent newspaper article, on the 4th anniversary of my son's death; who is buried at Gate of Heaven Cemetery. We chose the cemetery because of its park-like setting. 20-0\4 Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 30 June 14,2005 · We are comforted by the multitude of people who visit the cemetery regularly. The uninterrupted landscape created through the use of flat horizontal gravesite markers is largely what makes the cemetery's welcoming environment possible. Allowing vertical markers would put the environment in jeopardy. · There are two groups in this debate that have been heard clearly; the Director of catholic cemeteries and the residents of Oak Valley. There is a third group the city of Cupertino must thoughtfully consider. These are the many people buried at Gate of Heavy Cemetery and their families. Many, who like my son and myself, were former or are current residents of Cupertino. The financial interest of the Oak Valley residents and the diocese of San Jose are understandable; future property values and revenue streams are important. We should also stop to remember some investments made in the past. In choosing the Gate of Heaven, families made a substantial financial investment, more importantly their emotional investment was immense. The Director of Catholic Cemeteries, Mr. Linberg, indicates that he has had a constant flow of requests ftom families wanting vertical markers. These families have always been ftee to choose a cemetery that offers them; many people want an alternate choice. For over 40 years people have come to Gate of Heaven Memorial Park to make that choice. · Gate of Heaven Cemetery invited local residents to meet with them about their proposal. When the neighbors voiced their opposition to upright headstones, Mr. Linberg countered that the vertical headstones would be placed in areas with little visual impact to neighboring residents. My concern is that Mr. Linberg has not adequately weighed visual impact on the cemetery's regular visitors. Unlike the Oak Valley residents, we were neither notified of the proposal, nor asked for our opinion. She quoted Mr. Linberg's statement in the September 2004 edition of Valley Catholic. · Will changing the current landscape at Gate of Heaven Cemetery continue to serve these families sensitively? · I urge the Planning Commissioners to visit the Gate of Heaven Cemetery if you have not already; it is truly unique. Please honor the intentions of the many people buried at the cemetery and their loved ones who visit regularly. Let them continue to find peace in the open setting they desired. Do not allow upright markers. Aileen Kandel: · Opposed to application. · Husband is buried at Gate of Heaven Cemetery. · I have more information tonight as I was not informed beforehand. I did have a concern about the veterans' area where they wanted statues moved out and also the flag bothered people. That upset me because I have fuends who are presently fighting in the war. · My husband is laid to rest in the Saint Michael Guardian Angel Area and the status is very important. I have fuends who are concerned about changes in the cemetery. The flat stones are my preference, but I do not support if they remove items that have been in the park; the · Family plots are important to many of us and we expect them to remain. The statues and monuments were in the memorial park long before the homes were built. · It is not a park, it is a cemetery; I feel things should remain as they are. Stephen Villegas, San Jose resident: · In favor of application. · A veteran and member of the Honor Guard · The veterans have served their country, you, their families, and have given their lives. · We would like the images of the services which they fought for to stay · We need to remember our veterans. 2o-Q5 Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 31 June 14,2005 Alton Hicks, veteran: · In favor of application. · World War II Veteran, Korean War veteran and I will be buried in the Gates of Heaven cemetery; have fiiends who are buried in this cemetery. · I address the military markers to be located in the vicinity of the flagpole. · The 6 markers represent the various military services, the markers were displayed on Memorial Day and they gave honor and recognition of the sacrifices of our military personnel to the freedom we enjoy. They are reminders that our freedoms were not given to us on a silver platter; they came through the sacrifice of lives. · It is altogether fitting and proper that our military personnel should be honored by the markers. Panl Blefari, veteran: · A World War II combat wounded, disabled veteran; received the Purple Heart, Brown Star and other medals. · I attended the Memorial Day services at the Gate of Heaven cemetery. After the services, I went to the veterans' section and saw the veterans' markers and was very impressed. · I understand that the Director of the cemetery had applied for a use permit to install permanent markers and statuaries. · There are some residents adjacent to the cemetery who are objecting to the markers because they obstruct their view. What better view than markers honoring our veterans who gave their lives for our country and helped give us our fteedom? · These markers are a respectable tribute to all veterans of all wars. That is my primary concern. I would like to see those markers stay to respect our veterans, and ask that the permits be granted to honor our veterans. David Sanders, Commander of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post 3982, located in Santa Clara: · In favor of application. · A letter was sent in June regarding our feelings in this matter. We respectfully request that you honor the veterans by allowing the six monuments in the section by the flagpole and find some way to mitigate their presence ftom the residents who feel they are impacting their view. · We do things to honor the deceased; we erect monuments, Arlington National Cemetery is an excellent example. When it comes to change of rules and regulations, we do change things; we changed Memorial Day so more people could have a three day weekend and not honor our veterans but BBQ. · I would ask that you think about change in this matter. I have been at war and seen the horrors and seen the bond that happens when we get together and come home. We do like to play taps, fire three lollies of seven rifles, fold the flag over the casket, and we do like those raised markers symbolizing a cross, Star of David, etc. Think of them at France and at Arlington. · I hope you can find a way to find resolution for both sides. Vice Chair Miller: · (to Mr. Sanders) Is your issue that you want the size of the monuments to be the way they are or is it just that you want some recognition for veterans and if they were smaller in size or less obtrusive, would they be acceptable? Mr. Sanders: · I believe personally that any reduction in size is a minimization of what is meant; so let's make our flag smaller, our cities smaller, make less rules; less is not always better. Sometimes we need to have bigger and better things and I would like to recognize all veterans including the POW /MIA whose body was never recovered and who couldn't be buried. 20- qt£J Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 32 June 14,2005 o Those of us who have been in battle and seen death, we don't forget those things and don't minimize them. o As for "it's only a few" because that is what I heard; one is too many. Ralph Otte, (Not present) o In favor of application. John MartInez, So. Stelling Road: · In favor of application. o I am a veteran; and seen many horrors of war; these are our veterans, young and old. o When I saw the monuments I was proud of the gesture honoring the six services of the military. o My wife is buried there and I visit the cemetery two or three times a week. When I recently visited, I saw that the monuments were gone and the office informed me that they were removed because of a protest. o The people who are protesting are not patriotic, it is a shame! Chair Wong: · Explained the process; the reason for the public hearing is that the cemetery needs to come and have a use permit in order to have the veterans' memorial. They have a temporary permit from the city of Cupertino to put it there so that there was no disrespect to the veterans. Lois Murray, o In favor of application. o Retired US Army First Sergeant. · Cemetery monument seems to be offensive to many people because they say it ruins their view, and some residents are more affected than others. o I commend the cemetery officers who showed up to try and mitigate the offensive look of the monument. o How many standing minutes per day, or how many standing hours per week do you see the cemetery from your bedroom that overlooks the monuments? · The proposed mitigated changes cover much and they can add more shrubbery or trees, and they appear open to doing that. o Relative to the park-like settings, it seems that adding more trees and shrubs would add to a more consistent park-like setting. o Since 9-11, I was shocked when people complain about the monuments; especially removing them right after Memorial Day. Those monuments celebrate the lives given to this country so that so many of us can appear here tonight to have a difference of opinion. o I take this issue seriously and appreciate your allowing me to speak to the issue and as to the size of the monuments, as long as it is appropriate to the size of the flag that covers our freedom, I would be appreciative of that as well. Ken Girdley, Los Altos resident: o In favor of application. o I am the Post Commander for the American Legion Post 558 and for the 40 years the cemetery has been in existence, we have performed Memorial Day service at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. o I would like to continue to see the monuments in place the way they were this last Memorial Day. With proper screening the two story homes behind it could be screened by trees. 1-{)-0\1 Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 33 June 14, 2005 Looking at the monuments, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; you have to understand the sacrifices that were made and I think we all do, especially since 9-11. o Pointed out that the California State Law does not protect anyone's view; they are written to protect the property owner's right to improve, not the neighbor's right to a view and that has been proven time and again in lawsuits. o The flag platform is smaller today than in the past; the flagpole is the same height as it was; the proposed height of 28 feet for the cross is the same height as those two story homes that most of the neighbors reside in. o No one is proposing a Calvary Cemetery. Today is Flag Day. We played taps on Saturday during the flag retirement ceremony, and we heard comments tonight. I thought the Las Vegas comment was counter-productive. o I would hope that the monuments will stay in place for those who have gone on to what we call post everlasting. Odete De Sousa: o I am a foreign born American and it was my choice to come to the USA and to stay and give whatever I could of my talents so that I could serve this country. o It hurts to hear that people are offended by having to look the monuments or see them from their three story homes; it is absurd! Those are memorials to those who gave their lives so that I and you could be alive now; we wouldn't be if it were not for them. They are dignified, beautiful, they are something special for a long time should have been done. The tributes to the veterans on the monuments are very dignifYing and fitting for us to say Thank you for what you did, Thank you for dying so that I may live. o I want to correct a prior speaker's comment; that now the flag is on a platform and before it was in the ground. The flag was never in the ground; the flag was always standing on a pole in concrete; the present one has a smaller marble base. There are people who say they don't want to look at the flag every day. Guadalupe Spinner, 13'· District Commander, American Legion: o In favor of application. o I am proud to be here; proud to be an American. The flag means a lot to me and should mean to each and every one present. If there are people offended at looking at the flag, there must be something wrong. o I am proud that the veterans attended tonight. o The monuments are to show our gratitude to the people, men and women who have gone to post everlasting and they deserve something for giving their lives for their country, so that we can stand here today and express differences of opinion for those who say they don't want the monuments and for those who say they do. o Perhaps new markers should not be erected, the ones that are there should stay there; they should not be removed. They were put there before and whether or not they were put there legally or not, the point is they shouldn't be removed. oWe should all be proud of this country and we should all look at the flag before anything nasty is said. Lawrence Holian, Santa Clara Co. resident: o Neutral on application. o Proud to be a 63 year resident of Santa Clara County. o Regarding the vertical grave markers, they should be available to everyone including plots already paid for and occupied by the deceased. 2-O-Qlb Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 34 June 14,2005 · Vertical markers should be used as the cemetery does not maintain the horizontal markers properly, crabgrass is a problem and will overgrow the horizontal markers unless family or friends of the deceased cut the grass. This should be the responsibility of the cemetery. I believe the horizontal markers should be turned upright to correct this problem; my mother is buried there and I am well aware of the situation. Marie Boyd, Sunnyvale resideut: · In favor of application. · My husband was a disabled veteran and is buried at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. · It is a beautiful cemetery with caring people who keep it maintained. · Over Memorial Day weekend, I was pleased to see monument erected honoring all the branches of service. When I visited recently, I learned that the monuments were removed because of objections from certain neighbors. There were also objections to the flying of the American flag. Surely the residents knew that they were purchasing property adjacent to a Catholic cemetery and bordering the veterans' section where it is only natural and traditional to fly the American flag. · I am from the era of patriotism and hope that the feeling is not being lost in our country. I have traveled extensively in Europe and there are many reminders there and tributes of war heroes especially in cemeteries. · I hope the Planning Commission realizes this is a fitting time to pay homage to our servicemen who are fighting and dying as we speak so we can live safely and comfortably in our homes. · These monuments would be an attractive addition, not only to the city of Cupertino, but to the entire Santa Clara Valley. Raymond Gamma, Santa Clara resident: · In favor of application. · I am a Korean War veteran who initially served 4 years in the naval reserves and 4 years in the air force. · Prior to Memorial Day I received a phone call ITom an irate Cupertino resident, who advised me that a group of people living adjacent to the cemetery were demanding that six new memorial monuments in the veterans' section honoring the Army. Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, and MINPOWs should be removed immediately. · This upset me because of the veterans who went to war, many of whom never returned to their loved ones, who fought and died for the right of these citizens to oppose what is going on today. · In 1962 I was Deputy Fire Marshal in Santa Clara County Fire Marshall's Office; our office did the fire related plan reviews and inspections for the county and the city of Cupertino. One of my assignments was the plan review of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. I also had the honor of inspecting the facility after its construction; it was ironic, when I made my inspection of the facility it was all by itself, there weren't homes adjacent to the cemetery as there are today. Who Came First?? When they did come, did they know the cemetery was there? Yes, the original use permit specified flat grave markers, but to us veterans, the six beautiful monuments honoring our military and POW sIMIAs are not grave markers. · I am one of the original founders of Veterans' Memorial now located in Santa Clara's Central Park. When the four of us proposed it to the city of Santa Clara in March 2001, pre 9-11, the City Council gave us 100% support and granted us $80,000 seed money to start the project. Sad but true, we didn't need the money, our committee raised money through fund raisers and we did not receive one dissent, or comment against the project. · The cemetery did receive a temporary permit for the installation of the six monuments honoring our military and paws. To me the residents demanding that they remove these, 20 -Ciq Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 35 June 14,2005 should be ashamed. Also, demanding that they be removed immediately after Memorial Day is an outrage. · What would be more fitting than to have the monuments installed at this Ideation? I urge you to recommend to the City Council that the monuments be returned to the ýeterans section of the cemetery to honor our veterans 365 days of the year, not just on Memorial Day. Jim Lohse: · In favor. of application. · I have been visiting the cemetery since I was 3 years old, my father was past commander of the Los Altos American Legion Post, and I went to the cemetery every year to place a flag for Memorial Day. · I am surprised to hear people talking about a park-like setting as if it was really a park; the reason we refer to it as park-like is because it is not a park, there are deceased people buried there. It is under a conditional use pennit and is a different use; it is not a park. · I urge approval of a variance for the most contentious issue which is the upright markers. Perhaps once the variance is issued and that issue is settled, the rest of the issues could be revisited with cooler heads. · The idea that this is open space; there is a railroad track and PG&E substation there; Kaiser Pennanente is on the site; the backside of the beautiful hill is being tom by Kaiser and no one is complaining about using their mountain; they are worried about a little marker, but the whole mountain is being tom down on the backside. · If people are under covenants in that neighborhood, that is their problem. If the realtor told them something that wasn't true, that is the way realtors are; they are not held accountable. · The catholic religion build things big, that is a religious expression; I would hope that people don't see it as purely an architectural review as to whether something is flat or maybe reaching toward God a little. I hope they see it as a religious expression also. . · In 1962, LSD was legal; should we go back to that?? I don't think what the pennit said in 1962 is relevant; you need to take a ftesh look at it today and make a decision. · I urge you to provide a variance on the most contentious issue so that you can move forward on the remaining issues. Meghan Denzel, Oak Valley resident: · In favor of application. · We enjoy all the things that the Catholic community has provided for the area as well and enjoy the open spaces. · I understand my neighbors have some concerns; I don't have direct view of the cemetery, but I am a spiritual person and work in hospice. When I heard that residents were complaining about issues, we met with Mr. Linberg and I found him to be a very reasonable person willing to talk and make concessions to appease neighbors. · My grandfather is buried in the cemetery and my children walk our dog through the area because dogs are not permitted in Rancho San Antonio. They also visit their grandfather's grave and have no fear of cemeteries. · Cemeteries are about honoring the lives of the deceased and it is also about those of us who are living, and how they deal with the loss of a loved one. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Chair Wong: · Summarized that the purpose of the hearing was to listen to the application, the veterans' memorial is just one portion of the application. My father is a W orId War II veteran, and I 2D -LOO Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 36 June 14, 2005 applaud the veterans who are present; currently the US is at war, we have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and when people make statements that we don't appreciate the American flag, I think that is getting on the edge, it doesn't matter where you live; we are all Americans and we all support our troops and our flag; we just need to find a way to deal with the issues before us. · It seems like the people in favor are mainly concerned with the veterans' memorial and we will address that; this is an infoffilationa1 meeting. · We received a lot of input, there were 32 speakers. Ms. Wordell: · Summarized the issues of focus. o The low profile character of the cemetery - could the changes be reasonably hidden from VIew; o Does the proposal on landscape screening unreasonably obstruct views and we just request that our focus on these aspects of the proposal. · Said that the additional time would provide time for the applicant to meet with the neighbors to discuss issues and try to reach a resolution. Mr. Piasecki: · It is important is provide whatever direction you feel is appropriate that will help you reach a decision in August. It would help if they sought additional concessions and modifications or reductions, whatever they Can do to reach resolution. You may come back in August and you may not have agreement; but hopefully have less disagreement and that you have at least consolidated the issues down to hopefully 3 or 4 and you can then make a decision. · This is a final decision of the Planning Commission unless it gets appealed within 14 days of your decision. This is not the last opportunity for the people present, they will have an opportunity to address the Planning Commission in August. Com. Saadati: · I have not made a decision on my vote on the application; I intend to visit the area more. · I urge the applicant to meet with the neighbors and have a dialog and work it out to see if you can come up with some agreement when you return. Look at the options more closely. There is a way to get this resolved where everyone can be happy. Com. Giefer: · We heard a lot of feedback relative to the veterans' memorial; I would like to find a way for the neighbors and the cemetery to work out how that can be made feasible; one suggestion is for it to be at a lower elevation than grave level; it might be a simplistic way to preserve the markers and create a memorial that is similar to Vietnam Veterans' Memorial and the World War II veterans. · I think both goals can be achieved; any time there is a business, and the business was there first, and it is abutted by new home construction, there is always going to be some point of conflict and you have to work together, not give up, and keep trying to work it out and I am sure you will come up with a solution for everyone. We have heard a lot of opposition to the upright headstones, several of the clients of the cemetery say they don't like that. · I know that in the veterans cemeteries, they have gone from upright to flat markers because it is easier maintenance and upkeep for them. I think that the residents have a valid point, that it has been this way for 40 years and it doesn't appear from what we have heard this evening, to make them less competitive with surrounding cemeteries. · Everyone needs to work together, remain involved and resolve this to please all parties with the final resolution. 1.D -lot Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 37 June 14,2005 · I would like staff to work with the applicant, answer their questions, and when we see this again in August I would like to see an alternative that retains the veterans' memorials in a pleasing fashion that the neighborhood supports specifically. Com. Chen: · Expressed appreciation for all present and being respectful to each other. · We have heard both sides of view and I would also encourage the applicant and residents to work together so that by the August meeting, there will be a solution that addresses all the issues and it be a resolution we can all live with and all agree upon. Vice Chair Miller: · I also appreciate the fact that we were all respectful to one another tonight, which is very important. · I think it is unfortunate that there is so much polarization over this issue and that somehow things got off on the wrong foot as opposed to a more compromising atmosphere. I did hear a number of gestures towards compromise and a willingness to continue to dialog on the part of the cemetery and the neighbors, and as my colleagues have said, I think the best solution is the one you can work out for yourselves. · If you come back here and are undecided, we will impose a solution; but I guarantee that it would be better and you would be happier if you worked it out amongst yourselves. · I encourage you to meet and I would like staff to invite the Planning Commission to attend that meeting as well. Chair Wong: · Suggested assigning a representative from the Planning Commission to attend the meeting. Chair Wong: · The public hearing has been closed; you can contact the Planning Commission through the emai1 or through writing to us or contacting staff and there is another public hearing. · Thank you to all the residents, the veterans and others who do not live in Cupertino but have family members at the cemetery for coming tonight; and also for being respectful. · Relative to comments made, Mr. Wheeler said that it was a beautiful cemetery, lots of open space. Mrs. Stevens said that it was a good way for the neighbors to come together. This is a sensitive issue; I like what Com. Giefer said regarding the veterans' memorial. On a recent trip back from San Francisco, my family stopped at the cemetery and my wife was not aware we were in the cemetery until I told her; she was amazed at such a beautiful, serene and peaceful area. We did see the markers to honor the six armed forces as well as the POW s. · I think that Com., Giefer is correct in suggesting that they could come together with the neighborhood and have those markers below grade level to preserve them as they have already been ordered. I reiterate that it was a temporary permit they got, we wanted to accommodate the cemetery to honor our veterans on Memorial Day and they had to be removed until we had a public hearing. It seems bureaucratic but we are trying to facilitate this as soon as possible. · I indulge you for your patience so that we can resolve this issue, so that if you can work a little harder and find a good location in the cemetery, I believe the cemetery is 56 acres and we do want to keep it close to the veterans area as possible; I am sure we can find something to resolve it. You don't really want us to resolve it; we would like both sides to resolve it themselves. · The veterans memorial is not the only issue of the application; it is also to discuss the upright markers, and I think that the applicant needs to get more feedback, not only from the neighbors, but also from the customers it serves. I only heard one or two customers, and I 'LO- \0'2- Cupertino Planning Commission Special Mtg 38 June 14,2005 think there needs to be more outreach toward the customers; you might find out that more than 50% of the customers want to have flat markers. That is a business decision of the cemetery; the residents in Oak Valley Imowingly purchased their homes around the cemetery. · Bringing the crucifix down to 28 feet is a good compromise. Community meetings are needed for feedback.. · I hope that from now until August 23, we can come to a good resolution, similar to the California Water Company, that they had concerns with the Regnart Road neighborhood and in the second meeting they came and said kudos to the cemetery. I hope that the Oak Valley residents can have positive things to say to Mr. Lindberg when he returns. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Miller, to continue Application U-2005-04 to the August 23, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0) Chair Wong declared a recess. OLD BUSINESS: 4. Ms. Wordel . · Briefly revie the work program. · Noted that the PIa ing Department would be fully staffed soon and dects for the next year could be prioritized an scheduled. She asked for Planning Comrn' IOn input. · · · · Mr. Piasecki: · Said the staff would make every r sonable effort to cover eve of staff at one time for about 1- months. · Provided a staffing update. 5. Cancellation of August 9, 2005 Planning Commission me A discussion ensued garding potential cancellation of the August 9th meeting to coincide with th City Council mee' g. Further discussion will take place at the June 15th meeting. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to cancel the first Planning Commission meeting in July. (Vote: 5-0-0) PORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: No meeting due to lack of business. 1.0- lCß Ciddy Wordell From: Sent: To: Subject: Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Monday, July 18, 2005 12:04 PM Ciddy Wordell . FW: June 14th Cupertino Planning Commission proceedings -----Original Message----- From: Pyle, Thomas J. [maìlto:thomas.pyle@ngc.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:50 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: June 14th Cupertino Planning Commission proceedings To the Cupertino Planning Commission, I would like to offer some of my opinions following the review of a tape of the June 14th Cupertino Planning Commission proceedings regarding the Gate of Heaven Cemetery's application for a use permit. I have purchased three contracts at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery and I visit the cemetery and Rancho San Antonio Park almost every day. I am a Viet Nam veteran and a Presbyterian. Stakeholders In my view, the Gate of Heaven Cemetery contract holders and their families (many whom are frequent visitors to the cemetery) represent the largest number of stakeholders affected by this land use decision. The cemetery never wrote me to give notice of their plans or otherwise gave notice of the proposed changes to contract holders or visitors to the cemetery. This group has really not been consulted about the proposed changes and really didn't provide much input at the planning commission meeting. One resident (a lady) hit 'on it when she said, "the cemetery is as much about the living as it is about the dead." Currently, a visit to the cemetery is serene, like visiting a park. My experience is that I always feel better after a visit there with the panoramic views and the wildlife. Vertical Grave Markers The plan to have vertical headstones should be scrapped to preserve the park-like "look and feel" of the cemetery. This is most important for cemetery visitors, and would be less so for the adjacent homeowners given the proposed screening.. When I purchased my contracts last year, the cemetery's policy was clearly stated that only horizontal markers would be permitted. (There was no choice and no suggestion that the cemetery was in the process of seeking to change that long-standing policy.). Based on the economic data presented during the meeting, the 500 burials per year at the Gate of heaven Cemetery doesn't seem to indicate the presence of an economic burden without the vertical marker option. Unfortunately, because burial space is limited in Santa Clara Valley, there aren't many choices of alternatives and certainly none to rival the beauty of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. Crucifix I would also prefer that the proposed 28 ft high Crucifix be eliminated. A Crucifix can be a very scary and intimidating sight, especially to younger people. If people want to see a Crucifix, there is one available inside the Chapel. War Memorial I have come around a bit on the Veteran's Memorial, which I initially thought was very impressive. I now think it doesn't quite fit as is; it is just too prominent and "glitzy" for the Cemetery and I think some of the homeowners have a legitimate concern. I appreciated the comment by the lady who has veterans in her family that said in effect "we are all born into this world as equals and we depart the same way". The Memorial section 1 . W-I04' with all the "same" grave markers says that loudly; and to me, it is quite a fitting tribute to those veterans buried there. During the Memorial Day period, each veteran grave marker had its own flag that really touched me; and I thought was quite a fitting tribute. But as a veteran, I also recognize that many people wish to see a more tangible memorial. I would endorse a plan to display the current memorial, but below grade, as was suggested by Commissioner Geifer during the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Thomas J. Pyle 2 ZO -105 Ciddy Wordell From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mike Denzel [mike@denzelnet.com] Monday, August 15, 20056:08 PM Steve Piasecki; Ciddy Wordell; gwong.212@aol.com; Patrick Kwok Bob Lindberg Gate of Heaven Steve, Ciddy, Gilbert and Patrick, My wife and I live on Serra St in the Oak Valley development. When the cemetery plans were first brought up, we met directly with Bob Lindberg to discuss his proposal. We found him to be open, honest, and willing to work with the residents to mitigate any of their concerns. After meeting with Bob, we supported the cemetery improvements. As you know, at that time, not all of the Oak Valley residents shared our opinion. We were very happy to ~ee that the opponents formed a group to work with Bob on a compromise solution. As you can see, the cemetery has worked very hard to address their concerns, and at considerable expense. Even with the compromise solution, I am sure a small number of people will continue to protest. They simply will never be happy. I urge you to approve the modified proposal. Thank you for your time and energy. Mike Denzel McKenna Ventures www.mckennas.com (650) 967-4600 (650) 967-4800 fax 1 20-1 Dlp CLARENCE J. FERRARI, JR. JOHN M. ÜTIOBONI LISA INTRIERI CAPUTO JOSEPH W. MELl. JR. KEVIN J. KELLY JOHN M. WUNDERLING KARL-HEINz LACHNIT JULIE O. VEIT RAYMOND P_ SHEFFIELD FERRARI OTTOBONI """ LLP Attorneys at Law 333 W. SANTA CLARA ST. SUITE 700 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-1716 Telephone (408)280-0535 F~ (408)280-0151 OF COUNSEL THOMAS P. O'DONNEll March 29, 2005 Ciddy Wordell City of Cupertino, Community Development, Planning 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Re: Gate of Heaven Cemetery/Use Permit Application Dear Ms. Wordell: We represent the Diocese of San Jose, the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery in Cupertino (the "Cemetery"). We are attaching an application to permit certain changes and improvements to the Cemetery. The Gate of Heaven Cemetery is a large, fifty-five (55) ± acres, attractive and beautifully maintained, cemetery principally serving Catholic families living within Santa Clara County. It operates as part of the ministry ofthe Diocese and provides comfort to many bereaved families. The Cemetery was granted a cemetery permit (the "Permit") by the County of Santa Clara in 1962. Subsequently, the Cemetery was annexed by the City of Cupertino. One of the conditions of the Permit was that "the cemetery be developed as a Memorial Park with flat horizontal markers. . .". Over the course of the years that the Cemetery has been operating, the style of cemeteries and the cultural mix of those using the Cemetery, have changed. It is now quite acceptable and indeed expected, that a grave site be able to be marked with a respectful, small vertical marker. This, of course, has been the custom in the United States and other countries for many years. In the 1960's, however, there was some thought that horizontal markers would satisfy families desires to commemorate the final resting place of a loved one while at the same time giving the community a park like setting. Unfortunately, the exclusive use of horizontal markers does not meet the needs of many people, cultures and religious practices. The Cemetery is regularly asked to place vertical markers on its grave sites. Its inability to do so is painful to families in grief; they do not understand the need for such a restriction. Moreover, for some people, that restriction forces them to go to another less convenient cemetery. The attached application very carefully selects certain areas of the Cemetery in which vertical markers would be placed with little or no offsite impacts. The Cemetery will still retain large areas exclusively for flat markers. FERRARI:79682.! 'ZO-lol We respectfully request the consent and permission of the City of Cupertino to employ vertical markers and statuary as shown on the attached application and its exhibits. Should you have any questions, please advise. Very sincerely yours, ~~)~ . (! omas P :~ell / Ene. Cc: John M. Ottoboni, Esq. Robert Lindberg - Gate of Heaven FERRARU9682.1 '20-l0~ Ciddy Wordell From: Sent: To: Subject: Nancy Czosek on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Monday, April 11, 2005 9:43 AM Ciddy Wordell FW: Gate of Heaven Cemetery modification plans -----Original Mess-age----- From: Unrnesh Agarwala [mailto:unrnesh@juniper.net] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 8:49 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Gate of Heaven Cemetery modification plans We live at 21200 Canyon Oak Way which shares a fence with the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. Before we purchased our house, we walked around the Cemetery and were pleased to note that it used flat markers placed on the grounds so that if friends and family accidentally took the wrong street from the circle, they would not find themselves visibly amongst vertical grave markers. We were also heartened by the fact that the only thing visible from the outside other than the sign was the US flag. This way, we were not constantly reminded that we were in fact living next to a cemetery. We are therefore dismayed that there is a plan to erect a tall crucifix that will make it visbily and painfully obvious of our location, causing first emotional hurt and later potentially fiscal hurt with the effect of this change on property values. We hope that the City will keep the concerns of residents in mind as they consider whether to allow the Diocese to go ahead with this plan. Regards, Unmesh & Tulika Agarwala 1 2o-l~ Ciddy Wordell From: Sent: To: Leigh Stevens [leighstevens13@mac.com] Friday, May 06,200511:10 AM mediate4us@aol.cr)m Hi there, I am not sure if you can help us with this situation or if this is in the realm of disputes that you help to resolve. I live in the Oak Valley development in Cupertino. We have been having an issue with the Gates of Heaven Cemetery for the last several weeks. Basically, they have started construction without a permit on several features that violate their initial permits from the 60's. They are âllowed to move ground without a permit (obviously, they need to do that), but they are not supposed to have any vertical features (including tombstones). They are in the process of constructing an area for a gazebo, a 32 foot crucifix, and want to put in tombstones. Initially, they only sent a letter to a few neighbors who back right up to the cemetery, but that neighbor contacted others because of concerns that visual reminders of the cemetery might decrease our property values and/or offend people with different religious backgrounds. We have contacted the city and the cemetery. A city planning meeting to go over their permit was scheduled for May 10 but has been postponed because of neighborhood concerns. Now we are meeting as a group on the 18th for a discussion with the city and the cemetery. The postponed planning commission meeting will take place on June 10. Our concerns are that the cemetery is continuing work on this without a proper permit and there was no time period in which we could air our concerns. My neighbor called the police this morning since they started work at 6:38 AM. The city now says that they approved some "temporary" structures because the cemetery's customers are expecting some kind of structure in place for Memorial Day. From this, it sounds like they didn't expect any neighborhood input and were going to do the majority of the work, from the very beginning, without a permit. In summary, is this the kind of thing you help mediate or advise on? What should our next step be from here? Thank you for your time, Leigh Leigh S-eevens 10460 Serra St. Cupertino, CA 95014 home: 650-938-7762 cell: 650-224-2780 e-mail: leighstevens@juno.com 1 'Zo-110 Page 1 of I Ciddy Wordell From: Bill Erdman (berdman) [berdman@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 6:38 AM To: Steve Piasecki; Ciddy Wordell; Igiefer@sbcglobal.net; Taghi Saadati; gwong212@aol.com Cc: Bill Erdman (berdman) Subject: Gate of Heaven Cemetery/Use Permit Application Re: Gate of Heaven CemeterylUse Permit Application I am resident of the Oak Valley residential community, and am living in neighborhood 2, on Juniper Court. While I do not have any direct or indirect line of site of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, I am very much opposed to the request made by them to add vertical tombstones to the grave sites, as well as the 30' Crucifix. I believe the ruling made in 1962 was well ahead of its time, in only allowing small horizontal grave markings, thus preserving the natural beauty and tranquility of cemetery itself, and more importantly the natural park that surrounds much of this area. There is a very tranquil feeling both in and around this cemetery, as intended by the ruling in 1962. As for other data points, if you consider other memorials the government has erected over the past few years, specifically the Vietnam memorial in Washington D.C. there is a sense of minimal ism whereby the names of the lost loved ones are listed, however there are not individual tombstones that break up the tranquility these memorial are intended to create. Again I think the City of Cupertino got it right, and was ahead of their time in 1962, when they approved a minimalist approach to grave markings. For the last 43 years the worshipers of this cemetery have known the guidelines and have elected to bury their love ones based upon the aesthetics put forward by the ruling in 1962. Changing this ruling now, will only create a commercial opportunity for the tombstone suppliers, as well the cemetery itself. And if approved, I believe there will be a massive change from the horizontal to vertical tombstones, based upon people's sense of obligation for their buried loved ones, and the belief that they should better commemorate those that are buried, by now having to add vertical tombstones. As such, a favorable ruling will forever change the tranquil look of this cemetery and the surrounding areas. Further while my family is Christian, I am deeply opposed to adding a very large visible Crucifix of Jesus for all to see inside and outside of the cemetery. Christianity is only one faith out of many within Cupertino, and I think a large visible statue runs the risk of offending many of these non Christian faiths. It would be better to approve a natural wooden structure, much like the house designs around this cemetery (and which have many restrictions based upon the open space preservation). Within this structure could be a statue and perhaps a community memorial in which the names of those buried can be visibly posted, much like the Vietnam memorial. Sincerely, Bill Erdman 10808 Juniper Court Cupertino, CA 1-0 -It[ 5/12/05 Page I of I Ciddy Wordell From: menakermitchell@sb~global.net Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 20053:15 PM To: Ciddy Wordell Subject: Gates of Heaven Proposal Dear Ms. Wordell, Thank you for making time to hear the community's voice on this proposal. Unfortunately I will be unable to attend the meeting tonight and am unsure about attending the next meeting. I wanted to write to let you know that I am opposed to the current proposal by the cemetery. I do not believe they have provided adequate justification to allow for a change in restrictions on their development. While I realize that the desires of their customers have changed over time that does not allow for them to change or abandon their commitment to the Oak Valley community. We understood that the cemetery would not have elevated monuments of any type in order to help preserve the pastoral appearance of the land. Both vertical headstones and 6ft tall statuary will ruin that pastoral sense. In addition to my distress over the cemetery's long term proposal, I am disappointed that the planning commission gave the cemetery a temporary permit to install the plaza and statuary. Please be sure that the structures they put in place are removed when a permanent use permit is denied. As a non-Christian, one of many, living in Oak Valley, I would not be pleased to return home each day to see a 32ft crucifix towering over my neighborhood. Deciduous trees are inadequate to screen such a monument and evergreens are too slow growing to make them practical. The cemetery owns a lot of property, much of which is at a lower elevation. Why can't they place the crucifix at a lower level farther from the neighborhood so that it will be less obtrusive? Lastly, I must comment that I don't believe the cemetery has been a good neighbor in maintaining the water features at the entrance to Canyon Oak Way. They are in the process of doing major cleanup and maintenance for the first time since assuming the care of that property. Most of the time the ponds have been scum-covered, not in operation, low on water, surrounded by weeds and generally untidy or some combination of the above. Maintenance in the past has been sporadic and inadequate. On several occasions they have used chemicals to treat the pond that left the water a sickly blue color and killed fish, frogs and plants. Parents in the neighborhood have been afraid to allow their children to play around the ponds. In part it is this poor faith showing that makes me very wary of supporting their current plans. What will be next? Thank you for listening. Please share my thoughts with the rest of the planning commission. Stuart Menaker 21050 Canyon Oak Way W-llZ- 5/19/05 Page 1 of I Ciddy Wordell From: AZack43298@aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:20 AM To: Ciddy Wordell Cc: Llindberg@dosj.org Subject: Cemetery plan Dear Ciddy: I live on Hammond Way and I attended the meeting on May 18 at City Hall. I did not comment as it appeared to me the home owners were not open to adult discussion and frankly I felt I was in a room of very spoiled children who do not appear to have many important challenges in life. I see the cemetary from my front yard. I see the Maryknoll from my back yard. I object to neither. My feeling is that the cemetary was here a lot longer than any of these homes and as such has great standing. They have an obligation to be a good neighbor but the newcomers have the same responsibility. Robert Lindberg was correct. It is a cemetary. It is Catholic. They should not be held to a 1962 covenant just as homeowners should be able to apply to modify their homes and properties. Following the logic of the group the lady who just planted a lot of redwoods should not be allowed to make such an improvement. I do not object to a Crucifix or 30 inch headstones. I have raised four children and have little sympathy for parents who are worried their children may be scared by a cemetary or awakened by a truck and cannot handle it. Death is a part of life, almost all religions embrace an afterlife, a cemetery is a memorial and should be able to adjust their property to the changes of time. We purchased homes here knowing the cemetery was here well before us and only a child would believes things do not change. What they propose is well within reason and the boundaries of taste and common sense. Sincerely, A. J. Zack Lo-\l3 5/19/05 Page I of I Ciddy Wordell From: Peggy, Jacquet [peggyjacquet@comcast.netj Sent: Sunday, June 05, 20054:16 PM To: Ciddy Wordell Cc: peggyjacquet@comcast.net Subject: Proposed Use Permit 23555 Oak Valley Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 June 5, 2005 Ms. Ciddy Wordell City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA, 95014 Dear Ms. Wordell: Weare writing to express our strong opposition to the pending application to permit certain changes and improvements to The Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery located on Christo Rey Drive. When we purchased our home in Oak Valley about six years ago, we did so relying on the City of Cupertino to enforce the permit granted to the cemetery in 1962. It is not fair that the existing use permit be changed particularly in light ofthe adjacent communities' strong opposition to the proposal. We urge you NOT to approve the Cemetery's proposed use permit to use vertical markers and statuary. Very truly yours, Peggy B. Jacquet Richard J. Jacquet z.o -1l4 6/6/05 To: Steve Piasecki; cynhiaw@cupertino.org; lindberg@dosy.org Subject: Gate of Heaven Cemetery Use Permitt Application I am a resident of the Oak Valley community and live on Canyon Oak Way. I am concerned about the request for the change to the Gate of Heaven Cemetery Use Permit. I am a Christian and understand the use of symbols, the changing needs of the community and the desires for vertical markers at grave sites. I also think we should respect other peoples religious beliefs. I question the request for a 32 foot crucifix. It seems larges, given it's location. It seems like it would obstruct the view of the existing homeowners on the west side of Canyon Oak Way and the community park. I understand the need for vertical markers, Yet, I think there should be a limit as to the height and size of these markers. Another concern, not related to the use permit application, is the maintenance of the two pond areas at the end of Canyon Oak Way. Granted someone had just recently maintained the areas. We were under the impression that the cemetery was given a grant to maintain these areas. They have been unkeeped for a long time and not until this issue came up did someone start to maintain them. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Karen Iwamoto 21171 Canyon Oak Way ZO-llS Ciddy Wordell From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Keith Hocker [khocker@juniper.net] Tuesday, June 07,20059:35 PM Ciddy Wordell khocker@juniper.net; mmmhocker@aol.com Gate of Heaven permit issues Hello Ciddy, As we discussed some weeks ,ago, it would be good to put in writing our concerns with the Cemetery's proposed plans for placing a variety of items in and around the grounds. I personally met with Bob Lindberg about their proposed plans on April 6th after receiving an invitation letter to review the plans with him. At that time, he handed me a packet of information that we studied and at that time I did state that the items up for discussion seemed reasonable to me, but Michelle was not able to attend so I said that I wanted to discuss all this with her. After talking about this with her, and other neighbors, it became clear that the Cemetery's plans would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. I did not call Bob back to let him know of our final decision on this, so I believe he has been left with the impression that we (Michelle and I) were OK with his plans, when in fact we oppose them. He later used this information at a Community Meeting about the permit plans, this was unfortunate as we were not there to speak on our behalf. Since that time, the Cemetery has been moving ahead with construction of a Veterans Plaza. We became aware that they have been granted a temporary use permit to do this and this has been a big disappointment. They did not have to go through the approval process as everyone else does but were given special permission to create a "permanent site" for the display of 6 very large stone monuments and another 2 large stone cremation housing structures. Looking over the plans that I received, the plaza and monuments are barely visible, but not the cremation structures. All this is quite disturbing, we can clearly see them from our bedroom window as they are directly behind our house. We do however, now have the benefit of seeing the actual monuments before the planning process meeting. We can emphatically state that we object to them. They are out of character with the rest of the grounds, are obtrusive and much too large. We also find it a bit unsettling that cremation structures were also built when they were not on our plans. It's now been suggested that the Veterans approve of the Plaza and it's contents as was on display for Memorial Day. It turns out that Michelle, who is Catholic, has 3 cousins (2 Veterans) buried at Gate of Heaven and they in no way support this proposal. We would like to propose some compromises to these plans. We understand that the Cemetery is a business and as such, conducts routine upgrades and remodels from time to time. However, this is no ordinary Cemetery. In 1962, past planners had the foresight to limit the structures on the grounds, I believe, since it borders open space and is really in the foothills of the costal mountains. This use permit, limited such structures to maintain a park like setting that blends in with the area. One only needs to visit other cemeteries to see how they can get out of hand with monuments and oversized structures. To that end, monuments can exist, but be subtle an unobtrusive in nature and blend in with the environment. The Veterans monuments should be much shorter and be low profile in nature so as to not protrude above ground by more than 12 inches. They will in effect be laying down or have a slight slope to them, this is sometimes called a Pillow. The cremation structures do not fit at all. They are completely out of character with that location and so should be moved closer to the existing Mausoleum buildings further down the hill. 1 '2D--ll G The Crucifix is much too large for it's proposed location and ·should also be moved further down the hill. The size should be scaled back to something more tasteful, perhaps not more than 10 feet. This is consistent with other statues around the cemetery. 32 feet is approximately the size of the existing flagpole. The location of the Bishops burial seems fine as proposed, it's the Crucifix which is objectionable. There should be no vertical headstones at all within the cemetery. This is keeping with the previous permit which will maintain the look and feel of the cemetery in it's current state. The cemetery staff has done a wonderful job of upkeep of the grounds. It's this setting that would be compromised. Other issues remain as well, the size and location of trees to replace old shrubs and hedges -that were removed for the Veterans Plaza. Although I've heard it said that no one can claim rights to their views of the mountains, planting of trees that can reach 35-40 feet would very nearly block all our views. The previous height of the Oleander hedge was about 12 feet, it's our wish that plating selections be done to remain consistent within this height. We can certainly understand that the cemetery may want to shield the houses from them as much as we wish to be shielded from the cemetery, but larger trees are not needed to accomplish this. The effort should be made to keep an open space feel to this area. We moved into this area with the understanding that the cemetery operates according to the original 1962 permit. We would not have bought our house if the proposed structures had been in place at that time. We feel it's enough that we endure constant noise from the cemetery operations and traffic, but to have to live with large visible, unattractive cemetery structures that will continually remind us of it's presence would be too much to bear. Please take this under consideration during the planning meetings. We will certainly take the opportunity to speak further and share our views with anyone. Best Regards Keith and Michelle Hocker 21150 Canyon Oak Way Cupertino Ca. 95014 650-254-1333 2 lo-lll RECEIVED APR, S 2005 BY: April 7, 2005 Ciddy Wordell City of Cupertino Community Development Planning 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Gate of Heaven Cemetery/Use Permit Dear Ms. Wordell: Reference is made to that certain Application to Permit Certain Changes and Improvements to the Cemetery (the "Application") filed with you on March 29,2005 by Mr. Thomas P. O'Donnell of Ferrari Ottoboni LLP on behalf of the Diocese of San Jose, the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. The permit requests consent and permission to employ vertical markers and statuary in the Cemetery. On behalf of the residents of Oak Valley Estates, we request that you deny the Application in its entirety. [Attached is a copy ofa petition signed by residents of Oak Valley Estates objecting to the grant of the Application.] The residents of Oak Valley Estates purchased homes adjacent to the Cemetery relying on the Permit granted in 1962 which expressly conditioned the development of the Cemetery as "a Memorial Park with flat horizontal markers...." (emphasis added). The use of vertical markers and statuary (including a 32 foot cross) will cause our homes to lose significant monetary value since the vertical markers and statuary (including a 32 foot cross) will be a constant visual reminder that a cemetery is adjacent to our housing development. Some cultures already have difficulty with a cemetery being adjacent to our housing development. To highlight this fact by these visual reminders (to say nothing of the 6:00 a.m. burials that go on and the funeral processions causing traffic congestion in the area on an almost daily basis) is not acceptable to us as community. While we sympathize with grieving families that they may find the restriction burdensome (and that they may have to find another cemetery so that when they come to visit their buried loved ones a few days a year, they can enjoy the vertical markers and statuary), they do not have to live with the daily viewing of such monuments (reminding us all that death is inevitable) and they do not have to live with the decreased value of the homes in the neighborhood which in turn will result in less property taxes being generated. We, as residents of Oak V alley Estates, will have to live with those ramifications. C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\cupertinoletter.doc LO-ll~ On behalf of the residents of Oak Valley Estates, please do not approve the Application. In addition, please notify me of any hearings concerning this Application so that the re¥dents of this community can attend to express their very serious concerns. ( If you have any questions or comments about this letter, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 650-938-6789. verY~ yours, cu-< vt Ívt /6S~ Cara e urios;tJ ~ -- C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\cupertinoletter.doq W~llq April 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval ofthe application dated March 29,2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). ~(/(AA ð rL Lv, r-q)fJ. \ \ yu rk/l~Ch 0 ~ lc lvC-L'¡ 1ame Address /J t( A.. ~ 2 ( / Yo CANYòlII 011-1< v.4:Y / Name Address ~~ Ch..~...::. i/,Name .J . ¡¿ I iC,. c-r~ J. 3. fc L/ Oc./t Address f' ~k"ili, ."y ,!.,J. .... \ Name Address . . "'1' ~,\ 11 r J ,«(\ ;:...\-1 (\., 'f Lj)' Namè <:-\ \ 0 L¡ (i' 0 "':>l: I{¡' ¿., J Address í\fìì S-i{v(!ns (L'S') Name ~ --J L . "')(,,,.c\ C J,-€.,.\.~ Name 2 ..4" ¡j-ò£/t31IJJe {.W~ í dw?vh.{, ~-" ramie / (r{l..J. ^(.., ~~/t'4 , ¡tEl!¡. . \ v::u Name C ~ -"'1~:J Name I 0'-+ 6.' () SU í?\ "'5+ Address I C í t ~ ";.c!( ,.. "",c, "- Ù," Address U / LJ11J5? '5 'IlÚJ/.v 0;),..- AddTess 'J..367'-/ 6k¡r I {J;: ¡ /lJ:, 'I Address / IcÇD 7 r'II/W z..,4N I 1ft cT. Address {t- '::,-(7 /!A...Ú/l Zti/L(fec C T Address < { L.--·l-- Name ICF/7-..\' 1':'/1,1(//1:"", C-¡... Address IO'17S Jí,j,,-<¥~ C,~;/ Address C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition.doc 20 -120 April 7, 2005 \ The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29,2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gatè of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to de op the Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). ð-.~ Address Name ~ '=.. ~1t"'''''\\t\J i~~ ~c ~~ Name \ . 'Cft..v:J.fu<~ 2 Z \",\ '\ t-kl\'\ffi~ ~tM.£ lia't- 2//S-{)c.~ Võ Ad ess 2-:t.¡...3C:¡ \-+f~',\'v'Ç)M1 ~ Address ~ 127...,\<::( H·~MO¡<.1\~ ~AT Address ~) 2-ZZ-:>11f-;kMiI-t ¡yJ/) /;J~ Address Address Z l n '1 1~t1V'll1V\o "'~ Address v =, lt~ )JJ;¿Æ ( N Jt._.~ Ii. - 6; \ 22Z2.r- IhfM/ln\A/r? (4rt-Y Ìf_I~~e ~'~'~_7~r"\ICh.c.¡:L Ca.VlM\':; Address I U'~u,¿ ~¡g,u A / S":>:.;~ fIµ f ti AAR.... . Lr>...r rif.1D 'ì Name ( Cr G.." F- J J.c.... J Address jl ~ '17..., ¡v ~ 1>\ i»V"1Â- (,.r L..';r / ( * Address V'c.~,ßv<9) 2-? /19 Ik w.Wof/><) we t V Address Address d~dc~~ cAnh"\.'I"(1Ý~ lu~. Address C:\Documcnts and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documcnts\pctition.doc lD -l¿{ April 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29,2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner ofthe Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). W iW ;1!lti,-,?"1 çJame .~~~, Name ,J,~ ~jb 1 to Ibltvl: Lht /Ny, t¡,~;erh~D Address ~ 2367b ßJnl I( 11:)1:. IJ}~ f-F'VìV Address \ 04 ')1:, SJ (""",0 i!..D ..\~, Úf"-QV'õ' Ad ess 'O'ð l ~ ~C-CL..¡ìA...(~ ì\~ Addres /6"'¡' i<ír :JyC,(_f7ðr""-. j)/,_ Address I D:?JU;) S'i tA...tV'Oe£. c ( Address ( 0 3(. Ii .5 Y {J~:"l'II,_O (Zk' (,-; Address Name I óC¡ / 3 5;; ¿~O~e Addres Ûr, Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition.doc 20 -I 'ZL April 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop the Cemete verti kers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). 1-7"..."1..1 HÅf"1 M ~ WAAf Address Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition.doc 5 m¡.~ ltv.-.w.-4v.d W¿ Address ;2:1/ld~~-J!;- Address 27.2..38 HAMM'JtJD ._~'r' Address Address Address Address Address Address Address Address Address Address lo- (23 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). ¡fr C /u'C ---- Jeur7Þ <; tlJ !czJ April 7, 2005 It:; /1£, I Name· b/11 rf~eJl Name \0~ Name ~Ln'l // .' f<A5}\AN í kf!{\/ H. £' li?í" Name CARLITA A0tf11ML. a~%:e{J ~fr~ c¡~~ ~ Name ~:c jl/L DØ"Þ" ~ Name ~..Lr'/V \-\a."C'f"'.-: ~~ Name Name Name Name Name C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\pelition.doc 2//5"0 ¿?t,,- )¿/.-, ¿JerK ~7 Address / {}¡ Address J-{ ~Ol C rJ f1. "-Ib /1 Address I ¿.... JIll é Ç( (fC1A.Ø {)oJ¿ ¿J ~ Address J '2. \\ \ \ c PI (Of'io N 0 ~K. ~A-'1 Address ;:}-l/:ì-/ ~r9nf LJ~ Addre s {/ ~I / '2 I (fJtJr?J7 yo'\) !Jt<r/( W'!^1 Address '-J 21129 c,l?;-'//Ôb> D/J~ ú.-JJf t, AddresS' 0- \ l ~o 0 -dM ~(\-\J Oi.X. ~ Address q Sf) ~ Address Address Address Address 20 - \ 2-4 April 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval ofthe application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). /P~r' '40/'0 r-!-vr? ~ame~ Name / úS;g I /«0 to{' ât'rll ¡; CY-. Address 2-10 q't> CA...... Y"1oI. 0....1< W "-ý Address / J.<tl--iy ~ckvJ(.(.r~ Name /Ç~~<A 'D~Lv,(~ N~ L nu-sC f:ÆJ<e< . Name " uÙJL.c.. ~ U Ylm €SA Name 2 \,0",0 C?>...\Io.Y"v\ OG\.~ W/' Address \ 04'1 b (J V.Ï-{y\ftc... Cd-. Address 7.. ?,Ið{ 5~ (I/.¡/t. V4 LL&J ¡.2dlfz) Address ACf'Iv0a(b, c2 /;JO¿) (àVI(fv¡ Û~Ic~~ Address V 2i'Vtltt _L..-V\.-Ú....MoA.-V-C""- Name E r i c. 15 LI) il'hOVO Name 'i~~ ..', :' c' \. ..' ill. ..;' \L':.. .~ ~,:=J¿k~f Name S7øv6 {frpH ¡Mcfb Name /G,{ .Ff ¡'MY¡ f..a .,,1,, t r Address )D')?ì l'1afl 2.C'1,;t"" Ú Address .-2-1 IU() i~~;;~ ¿II (; (~L ~) ,'~v,/' ~J ~((o( Úrl-YQf'...J O¡4-i::- (£ÂC( Address tll2D C¡nJý/)~ 'D~ WAy Address ëll..M.AtJ ~~6.t-? Name /05;;12.. ~eAL..7A ú..,. Address Name Address C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition.doc 3 10- \V5 ~/", I . -.:..~ ..v c::.~?-ûí-0'i't.,_---"- -:7:72::';;J Name C¿l{) \ Y Lìòl\. Name' )jUa/(jjj/( p/tZ};O Name ' ~,:~\.,rl(~::-7\ V~ ,~¿J I'" ame " Ie' (( I] L 1- / ¡ {{t.( 0 II 3 I Name '.' (~I~/J- ~fh,ý~ Na.rne----:-- n~ Jt1'f~ .r!?ttJ p~ Name ( ! i i 1(\ (IT 0 ~ NaÏne(j' , {.L~~ ( rr/ Nam+ C ~~L l~{ 1"\5 ~ Name . . .. / I ') 7lN~:êlÌ":YJ ... C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition.doc 2 í 6'+ C¡ f .tv{ 41/ Ov"1 í~ {f Address {ê 4- ij 1- 1-1 (¡ -12t{1// \~( ({- Address J-:S S)~ OCk Vq lIt( f;tl Address ,7-.?Jc,;;(\j aC::,K \)U \\,v~\ Address '2- (f S I ~Q"-" OaJ. c() Q. V- Address (f :;:2? t ><¡-1 J3lcdfrUcJ.lí {U~14 Address I 11/ ç ç b Jv14 ill 2 k to. i í Â C í Address .:2../ I {ß I (ìCULU!trL ~ ~./" Address J -r ~ / f.ë I ÚLttbf tJ ^- Del¥- t;(}CU4 Address J 1''-- I I µ '. ^ . " t 'v ',J v"í (\ (l/l)1 7 {I ( . Address i DSl '-I (; l/'l//oll.-(( ,', Cf-, Address /0<61<{ ~1C-(Qr«\M t-+ Address· I () :r)'/JI1J;~<~/h C'f: Address .(J z.o -\2lP April 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop e Cemetery V\Ùth vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). Robert H. Miller Ii 11008 Sycamore Drive Name CuþddmœCA 95014 Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address C:\Documents and Settin2S\woitasnh\Mv Documents\oetition.doc ZO-IT7 April 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval ofthe application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the" er''), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop e ry with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). :J-I J 3 IC".vy AÚ D/J¿ W;1.. y 1t4¡6~~ / Address Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name C:\DoCuments and Settings\wojtasnh'My Documents\petition.doc Address Address Address Address Address Address Address Address Address Address Address Z01l.~ April 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval ofthè application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery ~ markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). ~~ ~ ;/..,/ ¡3D C->f"v fD'& 'VÆF:: w7'{ 'r Name Address (') ~, r' ,\1' I (=siL \ ~~"'~am~ ) j \; \ .,~.-/ _ ~. /~. /r',j) ""I \ x/ ~ddiJ~ \. ü.'-. '\ V--.-'~--(Å (, w- \z..q RECEIV D APR 1 2 2005 BY: April I 0, 2005 Ciddy Wordell City of Cupertino Community Development Planning 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Gate of Heaven CemeterylUse Permit Dear Ms. Wordell: We are residents of Oak Valley, Neighborhood One and wish to object to the placement of a large vertical marker at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery near our home. This objection is in reference to Application to Permit Certain Changes and Improvements to the Cemetery (the "Application") filed with you on March 29,2005 by Mr. Thomas P. O'Donnell of Ferrari Ottoboni LLP on behalf of the Diocese of San Jose, the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. The permit requests consent and permission to employ vertical markers and statuary in the Cemetery. We understand that a Permit granted in 1962 expressly conditioned the development of the Cemetery as "a Memorial Park with flat horizontal markers...." (emphasis added). The use of such large vertical markers and statuary (including a 32 foot cross) is unnecessary and could be objectionable to certain faiths. Although we sympathize with grieving families, we should not have to live with the daily viewing of such monuments. We request that you deny the Application in its entirety. Best regards, #Æ~ Dr. Leilani M. Miller kIt ~ Dr. Peter J. Schatz 1.0-\30 Regional Open S~dce ~~ ~ --_------: ~..~ MIDPENINSUlA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT May 25,2005 RECEIVED MAY 2 6 2005 BY: Planning Commission City of Curpertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 SUBJECT: Gate of Heaven Cemetery - Use Permit Application Honorable Commissionaires, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the permit application submitted by Gate of Heaven Cemetery to the City of Cupertino. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District manages the I 65-acre Rancho San Antonio County Park, which borders the cemetery, as well as the 3,800-acre Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, adjacent to the cemetery. This is the most heavily used Preserve out of the total of26 managed by the District in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. This area also serves as an open space outlet to residents of the adjacent and surrounding urbanized areas. Currently all gravestones are inset in the ground and cannot be seen ftom adjacent open space and park lands. The proposal would allow installation of upright gravestones as well as a large crucifix as part of the proposed bishop's plaza. Both of these elements could be seen from nearby open space and park lands. Permit application materials given to District staff by Gate of Heaven include a perspective photo taken on open space lands in the direction of Gate of Heaven cemetery. From that vantage point on Coyote Trail, both the proposed crucifix and upright gravestones would be visible. The District believes elements of Gate of Heaven's plan will have an adverse impact on the public's open space experience in both of these preserves. The District opposes the use of upright gravestones and some elements of the proposed bishop's plaza. The cemetery and other proposed work plan items are visible from trail perspectives not included in the permit application materials. These include Mora Trail by the water tower, Hill Trail, and the main entrance road. Furthermore, preserye visitors are not restricted to using developed trails on District lands. They can traverse the entire open space area on foot and as a result upright gravestones and the crucifix would be visible from any number of locations on Rancho San Antonio Park and Preserve. The District believes the impact of the crucifix on the open space experience could be minimized with certain measures. The plans currently call for a height of32' feet which seems quite large relative to the size of other installations on the cemetery grounds. A reduction in the height of the crucifix to 24' feet would lessen the visual impact while still providing the effect sought by Gate of Heaven. The District also recommends that 2D -\ 3l 330 Distel Circle Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-1200 650-69'~0485 fax info@openspace.org www.openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Pete Siemens, Mary Davey, led Cyr, Deane Little, Nanette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Kenneth C. Nitz GENERAL MANAGER: L. Craig Britton .t..........." __.....__....... Cupertino Planning Commission May 24, 2005 Page 2 Gate of Heaven plant large box trees to obscure the view of the crucifix from adjacent District land as shown in their plan. The current permit proposal shows only anticipated development for the next 10 years. Less than half of the 58 acres is currently in use, but over time the long-range goal would be to develop the entire property. Some ofthe undeveloped land directly borders public land and is clearly visible when entering and exiting the preserve. We would not like a precedent set that paves the way for the installation of upright gravestones in the undeveloped areas of the cemetery not covered in the current plan. The initial permit for the Cemetery was granted by the County of Santa Clara before the annexation of this area into the City of Cupertino. The County must have recognized that the Cemetery is located on the urban fringe adjacent to extensive natural areas. We applaud the County's resulting requirement in the Use Permit for flush gravestones to reduce the visual impacts of this use. The mere annexation of this territory into the City has not changed the adjacency of the Cemetery to extensive natural areas, and the reasons for inset gravestones are just as valid now as they were then. Finally, the District believes any changes to the Gate of Heaven use permit should include provisions to screen the cemetery's corporation yard from surrounding open space. The corporation yard is clearly visible from District trails as shown in pictures (5) and (6) of the permit application. The yard contains heavy equipment, caskets, and other construction material that take away from the open space viewshed. When the original county use permit was granted, much of the area surrounding the cemetery was open space. The permit must have taken into account the existing viewshed and its preseryation. Any new use permit should as well. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the plans. If you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact planning manager Cathy Woodbury at (650) 691-1200. r Cc: MOSRD Board of Directors Robert Lindberg, Gate of Heaven Thomas P. O'Donnell, Esq. Zo-\3'L- RECEIVED JUN () 6 2005 BY: May 30,2005 Steve Piasecki Community Development Director City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mr. Piasecki: We are writing to express our strong opposition to the plans proposed by the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery located on Cristo Rey Boulevard, as specified in the recently submitted use permit. The proposed 32-foot crucifix, vertical grave markers, plaza with 6-foot statues, and statue of the Pieta will all dramatically change the character of the entire Oak Valley area. We are concerned these proposed changes will make the neighborhood a less desirable place to live in and negatively impact the community's property values. Our family lives in the Oak Valley neighborhood not far from the cemetery. To date, we have received no communication from the Cemetery about the proposed changes. Given that we purchased our home with the understanding that the cemetery is bound by 1962 zoning laws requiring it to maintain a "park-like setting with flat markers", the proposed developments are especially troubling and completely unacceptable to us. We moved to Oak Valley because we love the peaceful, natural setting of the Oak Valley area given its location next to the Rancho San Antonio Park and Open Space preserve. The Cemetery nearby was acceptable to us because of its park-like, unobtrusive feeling. ¡fthe proposed plans are approved by the City, the Cemetery will become substantially more visible, conjuring up scary images for our family and neighbors. This morbid feeling will not only affect those who live here; it will spill over to those considering purchases of homes in the area and potentially to visitors of the Rancho San Antonio Park, since anyone driving along Cristo Rey Boulevard to and from Oak Valley or Rancho San Antonio Park would have a disturbing view of the 32-foot crucifix and the vertical grave markers. It is unfair for all of us who live in Oak Valley to bear the full burden of emotional distress and property value depreciation as a result of these changes proposed by the Cemetery. As a result, we urge you to NOT approve the Cemetery's recently proposed use permit. Sincerely, \ \\, C-l.:o.I' ~~.~ ~ ~ /U . Sa.U 1::v.-1. ~. Hari Sankar Meera Sankar Hari & Meera Sankar 10465 Madrone Court Cupertino, CA 95014 (650) 564-9916 'to - 133 RECEIVED JUN 06 2005 BY: May 31, 2005 Ciddy Wordell City of Cupertino Community Development Planning 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Ms. Wordell, I am writing to you today about the current dispute between the Gate of Heaven Cemetery and their neighbors in Oak Valley. I recently moved into Oak Valley neighborhood #1, on the other side of Rancho San Antonio, so this issue does not affect me directly. Nevertheless, I want to voice my opinion that the City of Cupertino should deny the cemetery's proposal to have their permits changed. When searching for a new home my family looked at homes near the cemetery, and considered buying a home in that location. Being next to the cemetery was an obvious negative. But the fuct that the cemetery looks like just a few buildings and open fields ITom a distance made it more palatable. Ifwe had known about the cemetery's plans to be more visible we would not have considered living next to it. Clearly, making the cemetery more visible will take significant value out ofthe homes in the vicinity. It seems to me that the whole purpose of having a permit process for construction is to protect the investments of neighbors and in 1962 the cemetery agreed to the terms of its permit. A couple of years ago a number offamilies made the biggest investments they're ever likely to make on the basis of that agreement. Now the cemetery is asking to have their agreement changed because it isn't convenient anymore. The cemetery's management feels they can make more money if the city will allow them to dip into their neighbors' equity. That's this dispute in a nutshell. If the cemetery needs so badly to be seen, why wasn't it an issue 5 years ago, before these families moved in? Times have changed - the cemetery has neighbors now. In closing, I would like to propose a compromise that I think would benefit both sides of this dispute. From what I understand, the cemetery has already violated the terms of their permit by erecting vertical grave markers on part of their land. Apparently no one knows how this came to be. For the sake of the families who have already buried loved ones in these sites and to save the cemetery the embarrassment of notifying these families that the sites have to be changed because of a code violation, I think an exemption to the 1962 permit should be granted for these grave-sites that would otherwise have to be brought '1O-t3'-t into compliance. In return I would like to see the cemetery live up to the terms of their 1962 permit ITom this time forward. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, U' ,'ì,./ lAU1 Denis Baylor 23676 Black Oak Way Cupertino, CA 95014 20-\2:5 RECEIVED JUN 0 7 2005 BY; Date: June 5, 2005 From: Carol Liou 10497 Manzanita Ct Cupertino, CA 95014 To: Ciddy Wordell Community Development City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Gate of Heaven Cemetery Use Permit Dear Ms Wordell I am writing to express my opposition to the plans proposed by the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery, to erect vertical markers and statuaries. as specified in their recently submitted use permit. My opposition is based on several reasons, listed below in this letter. Before I get to those reasons, I point out that I have reviewed the cemetery's plans (blueprints, letter to City requesting permit, artist rendition of proposed crucifix, etc), physically visited the cemetery site, and also attended the May 18'h meeting between the Gate of Heaven Cemetery and Oak Valley residents. My opposition is not based on "rumors", incomplete facts, or speculation; instead, it is based on a reasonable amount of research. I oppose the Gate of Heaven Catholic (GOH) Cemetery plans because it would change the aesthetics and character of the cemetery to be highly inconsistent with that of its surrounding area, which includes the neighborhood in which I live. This community -- the Oak Valley residential neighborhoods, the cemetery itself, the Forum, the Dioscese buildings, etc. - are subject to codes that were carefully developed to blend the community with the beautiful natural preserve that surround it and to adhere the community to a certain aesthetic standard. For example, as an Oak Valley resident, I may only hang beige or white outward-facing curtains in my windows, I may not install a basketball hoop on the exterior of my home, I may not store a boat or trailer in my parking lot, I must keep my garage door closed at all times except when using it, and I may plant only a few select types of trees in portions of my yard. These constraints, specified in the CC&R that I must honor, may seem like micro-management to some. But I am sure you understand the importance of them; they are designed to define the basic character of the community. When I moved into my Oak Valley home, I understood the cemetery to be subject to constraints that keep it "park-like". This was important to me, as the cemetery is an inherent part of the Oak Valley community. I chose to live in this area specifically because I found it to be natural and park-like. I am fine with living next to a cemetery that adheres to a "park-like" look. I am not happy to live near a cemetery that violates this aesthetic by installing vertical tombstones and large vertical statuaries. ~O-l-)LR One could try to argue against me by saying that these structures would not be visible to me from my home. I have several counter arguments: o The 32' Crucifix And Other Structures Would Be Plainly Visible To Several Residences: The cemetery has proposed the pianting of trees around the crucifix and along their eastern fence to "screen" the view of the crucifix and Veterans Plaza stuctures from residents. While I am happy to see the cemetery appears to consider the needs of neighboring residents, what they neglected to mention or consider, until pressed at the May 1Sth meeting between the GOH Cemetery and Oak Valiey Residents, is the foliowing: The trees wlli start out at only 21' in height, will grow at a rate of approximately 2 feet per year, and will likely fail to grow at the outset due to transplant shock. In addition to this, even after reaching the height of the crucifix, the screening trees will then need additional time to develop the lateral breadth required to provide fuli screening This means several residences wlli have direct and close-proximity view of a crucifix and Veterans Piaza structures for a minimum of 6 years, likeiy more. (As you witnessed, these calculations were confirmed by the GOH Cemetery's own landscape architects at the May 1S'h meeting.) I have communicated directly with one such resident. They do not wish to view the crucifix from their bedroom windows for the next 6 years. I would not want this for myself. i'm not saying there is anything wrong with a crucifix. I'm saying that a crucifix should not be forced upon a person if they do not wish it! The homeowner has communicated his objection directly to the GOH Cemetery, as weli as to the City of Cupertino. The Cemetery has fuli knowledge of this issue. o View or No View _ One-Sided Assessment: At the May 1S'h meeting between the GOH Cemetery and Oak Valiey Residents, the cemetery acknowledged he that it failed to officialiy notify residents of Hammond Way of their plans, who do have a fairly good view of the cemetery grounds. At least one Hammond Way resident notified Robert Lindbert (Director of the Cemetery) that he wili have fuli view of some of the proposed vertical markers. There was also much argument over whether the 32' crucifix might be visible from Cristo Rey Drive, particularly at the round-about. The GOH Cemetery has detennined, on its own, that ali of these are non-issues. They determined this without asking for input from Hammond Way Residents at ali, and without asking any of the Oak Valiey residents to view the "story pole" they erected. I find this to be very one-sided. I believe Oak Valiey residents, perhaps with the City of Cupertino acting as a neutral mediator, should have the opportunity to view mock structures and document ali facts with photos. To my knowledge, the GOH Cemetery has not approached the Hammond Way residents to properly notify them of their plans, and to give these residents the fair opportunity to assess and communicate any concerns they may have. o Neighbors, Prospective Buyers, Children Visit Cemetery: Although the cemetery is a private business, it is an operation that keeps its gates open to visitors. This means residents - adults, and most of ali. curious children exploring their neighborhood - take walks and bike rides through the beautiful cemetery grounds. Most certainly. prospective home buyers drive through the cemetery as part of evaluating the community. I know I certainly did this when buying my home, as weli as every single one of the neighbors on my street. So although the currently-proposed tombstones would not be directly visible from my home, it certain would be viewed! It would be a part of the community! o Precedent is Set for Future Visibility: At the May 1S'h meeting between the GOH Cemetery and Oak Valiey Residents, Robert Lindberg told us the cemetery buries approximately 500 peopie per year, which he stated to be "average for a cemetery of this size". At this rate, it won't be long before the cemetery buries people in the south-western portions of its land - land that is highly visible from Cristo Rey Drive and the Rancho San Antonio Park. If the City of Cupertino relaxes the '26-131 permit that governs the GOH Cemetery to allow vertical markers and other highly visible statuaries, it sets precedent to future installment of vertical markers in locations that are highly visible to all people driving on Cristo Rey Drive. whether they are residents of Oak Valley, Forum residents, or Rancho San Antonio park-goers. I oppose this precedent. i do not wish to be unreasonable and request the City of Cupertino deny any changes at all to the GOH Cemetery. However, it seems there must be alternatives that meet the needs of the GOH Cemetery without changing the fundamental character and aesthetics of the area. It certainly seems there are enough issues to call for the consideration of alternatives. For example, take the 32' crucifix. Robert Lindberg tells Oak Valley Residents his customers desire a stronger catholic identity at the cemetery, and that the resulting symbol must be visible from all points of the cemetery. First, the proposed screening trees would eventually screen the crucifix from the eastern portions of the cemetery, defeating the justification for its great height. Next, I personally doubt customers specifically asked for a 32' crucifix, especially if they knew the neighboring residents object to it. After all, 500 customers a year have chosen to bury their loved ones at the cemetery, despite the lack of a 32' crucifix. Finally, customers visit the cemetery for brief periods of time and at spaced-out-intervals. Are their needs so important compared to the potential discomfort of residents with a forced view of the crucifix from the sanctuary of their bedrooms, 365 days a year for many years? Given this, would the cemetery not come up with alternative plans? For the reasons outlined in this letter, if the Gate. of Heaven Cemetery submits its current plans for consideration at the currently-scheduled June 14th Planning Meeting, I request their submission be denied until they work cooperatively with the residents of Oak Valley to develop alternate plans. Sincerely, (pß~ Carol Liou 20 - 13ß RECEJVRD JUNO 8 2005 BY; Date: June 6, 2005 Jim Wheeler 22238 Hammond Way Cupertino, CA 95014-6576 Re: June 14 Planning Commission Agenda - Gate of Heaven Cemetery proposal Dear Cupertino Planning Commission members: Ijoin the over 100 Oak Valley residents who are opposed to the proposal submitted by the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery. The proposed changes represent a betrayal of a long-standing trust with the community in favor of incremental commercial gains. These changes are not only a betrayal of the people who live and visit here, it is a violation of the operating permit issued by Santa Clara County in 1962, which specifically states that the cemetery be developed as a "Memorial Park with flat horizontal markers..." Almost all of us who purchased homes in Oak Valley during the past six years have visited the cemetery as part of evaluating the neighborhood. In doing so, we saw a beautiful, park-like, pastoral setting, which is much in keeping with the open space of the adjoining Ranch San Antonio Park. When talking with others who visit the area often to hike or picnic, we heard them say they had their relatives buried at the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery because their final wish was to be buried near their favorite hiking trail, and that they liked the beautiful rolling hills in the cemetery which were not hidden by hundreds of tombstones. Over 50 of these Rancho San Antonio Park visitors have signed a petition opposing these changes and more will have signed by Jun 14. Changing to vertical tombstones and up to 32-ft tall statues not only breaks trust with the community at large, and the commitment to the 1962 operating permit, it dishonors the final wishes of many who are buried at Gate of Heaven. Because Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery is located at the heart of the four Oak Valley neighborhoods, most of us realized even before buying our homes that any changes there could have a significant impact on our community and its value. On August 22, 2003, I met with then Director of Catholic Cemeteries for the Diocese of San Jose, Father Enrico Hernandez. During that meeting in his office, I expressed the shared concerns of my fellow homeowners, about future expansion of the cemetery. Father Rico assured me that the cemetery had an excess of available burial plots and tombs, and that the cemetery would continue to expand as it has in the past, with new development of plots towards the mountains for as long as 20 years, with no planned development toward the homes. 1 20- L:l'\ June 14.1 JdIUIÎng Commission Agenda- Gate of Heaven Cemt;.....y proposal Jim Wheeler, 22238 Hammond Way, Cupertino, CA 95014-6576 Father Enrico Hernandez has since been replaced by Bob Lindberg, who is a former retail executive. Apparently Bob is prepared to ignore the local community in what appears to be a desperate attempt to increase revenues for the cemetery. During the May 18 community meeting with Ciddy Wordell, he refused to consider alternatives discussed by local homeowners. Bob's response to "What is your Plan B?" was his astonishment that anyone would ask that kind of question. That may work in the retail world, but Bob Lindberg does not have to sit at my breakfast table every morning and look out to see the 35 vertical tombstones that the cemetery has illegally installed in the center of their property. He does not have to look at the planned expansion areas where more vertical tombstones are proposed. He never even asked if any of us on Hammond Way could see the areas, even though he could easily see the windows of our homes from the locations where he planned to install vertical tombstones. The Diocese of San Jose already provides an alternative cemetery where vertical tombstones can be used at their Calvary Cemetery in San Jose. So, the argument that Gate of Heaven has to turn away customers is not valid, According to Bob Lindberg, the Gate of Heaven already handles an average of 500 in-ground burials each year, which is average for a cemetery of this size. Based on that, shifting to use of vertical tombstones is not justified. In summary, the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery has taken an approach of no compromise, no notification of all those impacted, and no negotiation. It is up to the City Planning Commission to force the cemetery owners to work with the community to come up with a solution that both meets the needs of their customers and does not adversely affect the community. Respectfully subRi~d, CL\;.. ~ ~ Wheeler, homeowner 22238 Hammond Way cc: Cupertino City Council 2 20-\40 RECEIVED JUNO 8 2005 ATTN -: Ciddy Wordell; Steve Piasecki; Angela Chen; Lisa Giefer; Mary Miller; Saadati; Gilbert Wong; City of Cupertino; Robert Lindberg, Director of Catholic Cemeteries; Oak Valley residents FROM-: Talya and Michael Brinkman My husband and I are owners of one of the Oak Valley houses. As you all know, many of the residents of the Oak Valley properties are very much against the building of the vertical tombstones and crucifix. There is no doubt that there will be a decrease in our property value due to the 32ft tall monument. When we bought our house, we were very careful to buy a property that would only increase in its value and therefore, it is very disturbing to us that there is a strong possibility our property value will decrease due to the new construction by the cemetery. This will effect all the homes and not just the ones in the direct "line of site". I believe that whatever the cemetery wants to do within its property is ok as long as it does not affect others around it. Obviously, a huge monument that can be seen ITom the houses around the cemetery is something that most definitely affects others. When we sell our houses, it may be difficult to sell to people as a result of the huge monument and vertical tombstones, not to mention the negative emotional impact it will have on new buyers and current residents, in particular the children. There are too many homes that will have a direct view ofthe vertical tombstones. It will also take away ITom the general "park like" feeling ofthis cemetery. I think it's a terrible shame that because of the decision of one person who has only been in ajob for 14 months, so many people are affected. I am also very concerned that granting a permit for vertical markers will set a precedent for other plots ofland that the cemetery owns. I truly hope that the cemetery starts to show some courtesy towards its neighbors as well as good faith. Some examples of where it has not are the following: · Even after the cemetery was asked not to begin working before the time allowed, and even after it said that it would adhere to the rules, the workers still started before the time permitted. The cemetery was informed that there are small children being woken up because of their non-compliance but they obviously didn't care! · The state of the pond that the cemetery is supposed to maintain and the lack of any effort on their behalf to communicate any problem to Oak Valley residents do not show good fuith. · The cemetery did not notifY all the residents of Oak Valley regarding its changes and even though my property may not be in the direct "line of site", these changes will affect my property value. · The cemetery has alreadv violated the 1962-zoning ordinance. I also hope that the City of Cupertino is very careful in future not to give any kind of verbal permission without checking with neighbors first. We, as homeowners, all have to send a letter to other residents if we are making changes to our homes. How is it that the cemetery did not need to wait for a reply from their neighbors before being allowed to go ahead with their construction? The city was contacted numerous times by one ofthe residents before the May 18th meeting, messages were left, but the calls were never lO-\C\\ answered. My impression ofthe May 18th meeting was that it was a fiasco. The manager of the cemetery was put at the same table as the representative fÌom the ci,y but no Oak Valley representatives were at the table. This was only the start. . . i As I said at the meeting on May 18th, if the city can't be bothered to return calls, allows construction in violation of rules and permits, then why would people want to buy in Cupertino. Perhaps it's time for the city to protect everyone and not just their biggest tax revenue businesses, Sincerely, Talya Brinkman LO - \ 4-1..- RFX~ETVED JUN 0 8 2005 BY; 10460 Serra Street Cupertino, CA 95014 June 6, 2005 Steve Piasecki Cupertino. City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3232 Dear Mr. Piasecki: I am writing to oppose the plans of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, currently pending approval by the City of Cupertino Planning Commission. I would like to discuss how I learned about the plans for the cemetery and my concerns.. A neighbor, bordering the cemetery, inquired if I had been a recipient of a letter from the cemetery. It appeared that only a small number of homeowners received notification of the cemetery's plans. The neighbor subsequently informed others. Later, I read the cemetery's letter that was provided to the city and I was concerned that the letter asked for new vertical markers, but only specifically mentioned headstones. There was no mention of the crucifix or the re-development of the Veteran's section. I am concerned because, armed only with that letter, and the fact that the letter from the city announcing the original planning commission meeting on May 10 arrived on or about May 2, Oak Valley residents would not have been adequately informed what their neighbor, the cemetery, was considering, even though it was a major change to their original cemetery permit. There are several things about the plan that I object to, including the height of the crucifix, the tombstones and the large "monoliths" at the Veteran's plaza. When we purchased our home, we knew there was a cemetery/memorial park nearby, but it was of an unassuming nature with mostly flat markers. It did not have the feel of a "Sleepy Hollow and the Tale of the Headless Horseman" cemetery and we prided ourselves by telling friends that we had quiet neighbors and we would never have our view of the mountains obstructed by numerous houses. I do not like the argument (from participants at the May 16 meeting and secondhand from neighbors who contacted the cemetery last fall) that we should not object to the development plans of the cemetery because we were the ones who chose to live here. We chose to live here because of the beautiful natural landscape and the fact that it was going to be maintained in the same manner as when we originally moved here. I, personally, am offended by the size of the crucifix. I understand that religious symbols cannot be prohibited but does it need to be 3 stories tall? Why can't it just be a cross? Homes and businesses have height limits dictated by the city, but what about statuary? It will be many years before the neighbors of the cemetery with a direct view from their bedrooms will have the crucifix screened by trees, especially if the existing trees are removed and replaced with 21 foot Redwoods. 20 - \ 4-:') The tombstones are being promoted for economic ryasons, according to the cemetery's letter to the city. Those will be visible to many neighbors and change the entire character of the region. It may affect our home sales because of a "heebie-jeebie" factor or from a "fung shui" perspective. It will definitely impact the City, as they continue to try to sell the undeveloped lots that they own on Serra Street, Canyon Oak Way and Hammond Way. Even if the economics of providing headstones is not primary factor, and if the basic reason for the headstones is to provide comfort or a memorial to a loved one, the fact is that people will purchase a plot at a memorial park, prior to passing on, because it doesn't have visual markers of death. Lastly, the construction of the Veteran's Plaza, already completed, but under a temporary building permit, is practically against the fence line. The cemetery has 58 acres and has created an all-new area for a section that only has 23 spaces left. At the May 16th meeting with the Oak Valley residents, the cemetery indicated that they would be placing six 6 foot black marble monoliths around the plaza. These are much more massive than was implied at the meeting. Additionally, there are now 2 six foot crypts placed in the plaza that were never mentioned, at either the meeting, in the letter, or on the cemetery building plans. I feel this is not a proper project to approve, as it stands. There are too many things that we, as neighbors, object to or have issue with. I would ask that the planning commission delay a decision or reject the plan, as submitted, until the cemetery and the neighbors can come to an agreement that is mutually acceptable. ~~~~ Leigh Stevens Lo-\4A~ 10537 Manzanita Court Cupertino, CA 95014 RECEIVED JUNO R 2005 BY: June 6, 2005 Steve Piasecki Community Development Director City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Gate of Heaven Cemetery Use Permit Dear Mr. Piasecki, We are writing to express our opposition to the plans proposed by the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery to erect vertical markers and statuaries, as specified in their recently submitted use permit. The cemetery is currently zoned as a "memorial park with flat horizontal markers", as per a 1962 zoning and land use ordinance. This ordinance helps maintain that the cemetery's aesthetics and character are consistent with that of its surrounding area, which includes the neighborhood in which we live. We purchased our home in the Oak Valley neighborhood because we appreciated the natural and park-like appearance of the homes and surrounding community, which includes the cemetery and Rancho San Antonio Park. We were aware that the community was subject to codes that were carefully developed to blend the community with the picturesque natural preserve that surrounded it, as this was specified in the CC&R's which we signed prior to moving into our new home. We oppose the Gate of Heaven Cemetery plans because it would change the character and appearance of the cemetery to be highly inconsistent with that of its surrounding area. We understand that the cemetery is our neighbor and that it is a business. We would like to request that the City of Cupertino deny the plans proposed by the Gate of Heaven until they work cooperatively with the residents of Oak Valley to develop alternate plans. Sincerely, &w,~/¡¡V Eric Tsujimoto &øÞ-" ~ Cecilia Imamura '2-0--145 Scott and Kathryn Houghton 22248 Hammond Way Cupertino, CA 95014 (650) 938-2360 Ciddy Wordell City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RECEJ JUN 0 8 200~ BY: June 6, 2005 Dear Ms. Wordell: We are writing to express our strong opposition to the plans proposed by the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery located on Cristo Rey Boulevard, as specified in the recently submitted use permit. The proposed 32-foot cruåfix, vertical grave markers, veterans' plaza with 6-foot monuments and crypts, and statue of the Pieta will all dramatically change the character of the entire Oak Valley area. We are concerned these proposed changes will adversely affect the neighborhood by making it a less desirable place to live and, specifically, decreasing the community's property values. Our family lives in the Oak Valley neighborhood overlooking the cemetery's northern property. Currently, we have a direct view of the existing vertical grave markers within the çemetery from our backyard. We understand these markers were erected in violation of a 1962 zoning ordinance and without a permit from the City of Cupertino. See the attached photo" A" for the view of these vertiæ1 markers from our backyard. If the proposed changes are allowed, we will also have a line- of-sight view of additional vertical grave markers in at least one area proposed by the cemetery. See the attached photo "B" for a close-up of a grassy hill area proposed for vertical markers from our backyard. Given that we purchased our home in 1999 with the understanding that no vertical grave markers would be used by the cemetery, the past violations and proposed developments are especially troubling and completely unacceptable to us. For both the existing and proposed vertical markers, no one from the Cemetery has spoken with us about the changes, even though our home is clearly visible from the Cemeterý s property. See the attached photo "C" for the view of our home from the grassy hill area within the Cemetery. We understand a small number of our neighbors on Canyon Oak Way were contacted about some of the proposed changes visible from their homes, yet we were never given the courtesy of a phone call, visit or letter. We only found out about the proposed changes when the City sent us a letter about the neighborhood meeting on May 10, 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LD-14Lc> Furthermore, it is likely we will have a view of the life-size statue of the Pieta and of the 32-foot crucifix from our backyard. The Pieta will be placed near the existing vertical grave markers already visible from our backyard. The crucifix will be placed in front of some tall trees meant to shield the statue from the residents on Canyon Oak Way, and the Cemetery's intent is to make it visible to the rest of the Cemetery north of the statue. This would indicate that it will be visible to us as well yet, until story poles are placed, it is difficult to determine how obvious the structure will be from our backyard. See the attached photo "D" for the view of the trees where the statue is likely to be placed from our backyard. Most importantly, at some point in the future, the Cemetery will need to expand upon its current and proposed boundaries. 1£ vertical grave markers are allowed for this proposed expansion, they will most likely be allowed in the future as well, once the precedent is set. When the Cemetery decides to expand to its currently undeveloped property to the north, we will have an even more pronounced view of grave sites and, potentially, vertical grave markers. See the attached photo "E" for a view of the currently undeveloped area from our backyard. Not only would the vertical markers be obvious and offensive to us from our backyard, others driving along Cristo Rey Boulevard to and from Rancho San Antonio Park would have this same disturbing view. We moved to Oak Valley in 2000 because we loved the peaceful, natural setting of the Oak Valley area given its location next to the Rancho San Antonio Park and Open Space preserve. The Cemetery nearby was acceptable to us because of its park-like, unobtrusive feeling. 1£ the proposed plans are approved by the City, the Cemetery will suddenly become a very obvious cemetery, conjuring up scary and spooky images for our family and neighbors. This morbid feeling will not only affect those who live here; it will spill over to those considering purchases of homes in the area and potentially to visitors of the Rancho San Antonio Park. We would like to make one final point about the potential dec1ine in property values as a result' of the Cemetery's proposed changes. Our neighbor's home at 22209 Hammond Way was recently sold. The first two buyers for this home backed out of their contract shortly after finding out the home was near a cemetery. Our belief is this type of behavior will occur more often if the Cemetery becomes more conspicuous. As a result, the homes in the neighborhood will experience value depreciation as fewer buyers are interested. And, although we are not yet aware of the sale price for this home, its asking price of $2,595,000 is already below its assessed value in 2002 of $2,637,414. It is unfair for all of us who live in Oak Valley to bear the full burden of emotional distress and property value depreciation as a result of these changes proposed by the Cemetery. As a result, we urge you to NOT approve the Cemetery's recently proposed use permit. ~'4b ~Ughton ' Kathryn Houghton ZJ)-\4'ì Grave Markers From Our Backyard Photo A: View of Existing Vertical View of Our Home From Street Near Grassy Area Within Cemetery . . Photo C Stand Where Proposed 32-Foot Crucifix Likely Will View of Trees Near Photo D: Ciddy Wordell Cc: Subject: Mike Denzel [mike@denzelnet.com] Thursday, June 09, 20052:41 PM Steve Piasecki; Ciddy Wordell; Igiefer@sbcglobaLnet; mmiller@interorealiestate.com; Taghi Saadati; gwong212@aoLcom; èity of Cupertino Planning Dept. lindberg@dosj.org; Meghan Denzel I support Gate of Heaven's plans From: Sent: To: Ladies and Gentlemen, I live on Serra St. in Oak Valley and I support the proposed improvements to the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. Unlike most of the vocal opponents, my wife and I met with Bob Lindberg to understand the specific changes to the cemetery. We found Bob to be open, honest, and truly concerned about addressing any issues the neighbors may have. This is evident by his willingness to modify the plans in order to eliminate the visual impact of the changes. The memorials to the armed forces erected for Memorial Day were beautiful. If this is an indication of the quality and workmanship of the crucifix and vertical markers, they will be a welcome improvement to the cemetery. We have loved ones there, and we visit often. There can only be 5 or 6 homes that have a direct view into the cemetery. And only a portion of them do not like the changes. Please do not stop the cemetery's plans because of a very few families with buyer's remorse. Thank you. I would be happy to speak personally with any of you on the above matter. Mike Denzel McKenna Ventures www.mckennas.com (650) 967-4600 (650) 967-4800 fax 1 lo-\4~ RECEIVED JUN (} 9 2005 BY; June 8, 2005 Ciddy Wordell City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino CA 95014 Dear Ms WordeJl: I would like to add my voice to those opposing the recently submitted proposal by the Gate of Heaven Cemetery to add a 32 foot crucifix and vertical statuaries to their property. As currently detailed in their plans, these modifications are out of character with the pastoral nature of the cemetery and surrounding environment. In addition, the crucifix, statuaries and headstones would be visible from several surrounding homes, the owners of which purchased their homes relying on the 1962 use permit restricting the cemetery to flat markers. It is likely that addition of these markers would have a negative impact on the value of homes in the area. At the May 18th meeting between the neighborhood and cemetery representatives, Mr. Lindberg stated that the 32 ft cross was designed to enhance the Catholic nature of the cemetery. As a Catholic, however, I believe the Catholic nature is inherent in the sacred, consecrated ground in which the deceased are interred, not in any external decorations we might add to the grounds. My mother and grandparents are all buried in Catholic cemeteries, and none of them have giant crucifixes in them. I would like to add that the 21' trees that the cemetery proposes to plant to camouflage the crucifix will do little to block a 32' crucifix, at least for many years. Several people have requested that Mr. Lindberg erect a temporary crucifix to demonstrate his plans, but to date I have not seen this done. I understand that Mr. Lindberg may be fielding requests by people to mark their loved ones' graves with headstones. There are many people, however, who are drawn to Gate of Heaven by its park-like setting. I recently met a woman whose parents are buried there, and she also opposes the proposed changes. There are many Catholic cemeteries that have headstones, but few with the unique character of Gate of Heaven. Once that is lost, it can never be recovered. As currently submitted, the cemetery's proposal fails to fully consider the needs of its neighbors. I would respectfully request that it be denied. Sincerely, ~ y" YtLð1U£ Pam Lilly McNelis 21100 Canyon Oak Way Cupertino CA 95014 1-0- lL\:q June 9, 2005 Ciddy Wordell City of Cupertino Community Development Planning 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Gate of Heaven CemeteryfUse Permit Dear Ms. Wordell: Reference is made to that certain Application to Permit Certain Changes and Improvements to the Cemetery (the "Application") filed with you on March 29,2005 by Mr. Thomas P. O'Donnell of Ferrari Ottoboni LLP on behalf of the Diocese of San Jose, the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. The permit requests consent and permission to employ vertical markers and statuary in the Cemetery. On behalf of the residents of Oak Valley Estates, we request that you deny the Application in its entirety. Attached is a copy ofa petition signed by 135 residents of Oak Valley Estates and 89 visitors to the Rancho San Antonio Park objecting to the grant of the Application, for a total of 224 signatures. Also included is a letter from the residents on Canyon Oak Way, as well a number of other letters sent to you previously and an article from the San Jose Mercury News this morning on this subject. The residents of Oak Valley Estates purchased homes adjacent to the Cemetery relying on the Permit granted in 1962 which expressly conditioned the development of the Cemetery as "a Memorial Park with flat horizontal markers...." (emphasis added). The use of vertical markers and statuary (including a 32 foot cross) will cause our homes to lose significant monetary value since the vertical markers and statuary (including a 32 foot cross) will be a constant visual reminder that a cemetery is adjacent to our housing development. Some cultures already have difficulty with a cemetery being adjacent to our housing development. To highlight this fact by these visual reminders (to say nothing of the 6:00 a.m. burials that go on and the funeral processions causing traffic congestion in the area on an almost daily basis) is not acceptable to us as community. While we sympathize with grieving families that they may find the restriction burdensome (and that they may have to find another cemetery so that when they come to visit their buried loved ones a few days a year, they can enjoy the vertical markers and statuary), they do not have to live with the daily viewing of such monuments (reminding us all that death is inevitable) and they do not have to live with the decreased value of the homes in the neighborhood which in turn will C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\cupertinoletter.doc lo-\5D result in less property taxes being generated. We, as residents of Oak Valley Estates, will have to live with those ramifications. On behalf of the residents of Oak Valley Estates, please do not approve the Application. In addition, please notify me of any hearings concerning this Application so that the residents of this community can attend to express their very serious concerns. If you have any questions or comments about this letter, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 650-938-2360. Very truly yours, Kathryn Houghton C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\cupertinoletter.doC) 'LO-151 Oo.t vol leG, / ''\ ( X-( -( u- 51-( (! f7_-+ ) Rancho San Antonio Park Visitors Against Vertical Tombstones at Gate of Heaven Cemetery May 31, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to de~op the Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). . 51· _ At -/045 /~~tJei- )(fame Address (' A 9 S () I cí /rmo...'(\0-- ~Oo~ tCJ40( S~nItC~.J)h'1eé'¡ / (,UPc>(\t)'hó Lr N}I11le Address (/-'1 '7 j" I - . /Yo?~~ I Òc.;c¡¡ \eml (;/ {L~/¡{/¡HC7 äl , Nam Address ¡/ / 'y&J Name ame lo4~D &~ Ç\ C~V-GI CÞ- Address ~ ?o7D QM In/f1h; II ~ Los-~~ í!{ó;J Address ,_/~ Name Address Name Address Address Name Address Name Name Address Address Name lD- 15'2... Rancho San Antonio Park Visitors Against Vertical Tombstones at Gate of Heaven Cemetery May 31, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29,2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with vertical mfj;.rs ~ s~~ (including a 32-foot cross). <Ç rev€.- St/h,' f1... Jð~ ;-C} 'tb Yh tJ r}¡¡ ~ Or¿ -SJ:' U, Name Address -Kv~~ Name 5~~ k'UeJv¡ ç1:)~WJi ¡karr:e Jiu ( Name . ~ ~J;rV¥JAM1 ~ame ./ ~ f1ilJr.d 1,,... Name -;7'~ s..~ \<~~ Name J-~ ~'Å, '2 [ 'ð bð Gz:t~ \/íe»J Address Iff) {..c~ I-ef/..O Address W^J~ C!J1- crt !C'tfD JJh. (/r'Y/I1J / 7 'f-S; va L4 '-^' /'1;d~'vV '''L.4040 Address 1'5+tJ¿ 61 Osö))r- S.r 95(2'7 Address (&''f ~ L I 65 <D p"r S::\J / '1} tY( Address !DlvS E ,Crf>$ff,Ne.. h ,~Oð~J Address ~o 1/1 7}.of; dv~ .>~ ftt:s: Jd 7r!1 Address '1:<'/2./ 7'VvJ ~4.. L, 7 11 J- S'J wf Address .,$ lrr..... 6 6/ ~m IØ( Pt~A> t.t?I,tVdÚ; 6.1» , u C/J '7 IpJJ 1- Address ~. rlM\'\''¡-N\\ (~WL CA-lt"nV Address t='~Q(S(~('J yt\*(ljtlO(qO N, b;Qn(i(,..L- é$t--VV.~ fl- o....rc.vr\N¡ Address q :;:0 i c.r 2-0-\53 Rancho San Antonio Park Visitors Against Vertical Tombstones at Gate of Heaven Cemetery May 31, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with ve 'cal markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). ftKh AQ!I- ~1Ma ,{>cJ.¡¡ oJJro .(!L. /' iU(~ ) Addrès's . tJft;J '1fJ ~~~~, ~/ C4 \r~ I Iv..,...) AJ..¡e. 2,1I'tì H..:r.-~ P).. S~Ý' Aadress Ã' 71 ~lI#A fl.. s;: é @ 'T~7 Address ¡P!/) Mtrc-J/ð-/ 01. !ø".L WD4' Address /5'8 J/J ~hA 41 ~.~ f1:1k Address wn- VQfW:ir.. (UY/1ce ")"'1 ~ 9~()1.. Address ' I i c~ to tr'J:¡¿~" ~-<..- ¿S""'..... ïiGJ e. 9¿;, ¿ t Ad ess \111 g(tt\h~vy W"./ ç¡,c1.u. ~S")¿ 1 Address I ' N ~C~ ~~~b ame 117::rð/itJ Sc; ~ '<f~l/li5jN Name ~~~ 1~-Lh;~ IVlY! Name cfrtðé 5:P/1.o\ Le. IN &1 f(l} lì~~ ~, L~iKJYl A~ t¡JdtJ Z~l/f}~ß~.jw~ Address ??-;}i)... (",(c. ~ " ~ Jj- ---BiI ð<- Address Lo/U!GtJ Name 1..-0-15~ Rancho San Antonio Park Visitors Against Vertical Tombstones at Gate of Heaven Cemetery May 31, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). \ f\ J. I l/./f. /Jnde/óf)1¡ Î- /'" ~ ~ \~u,p 3~ I.2JJC¡ !1fritllYl Û I de; !jolt{ Ivr~ wi Name Address .J';h¡.)~~ ~~MD)¡khl1"e. /~ð'/''i~-., -40ÞfL·.A/J;.¿t Name Address 9c./oV'9 Ãdf.cu.. kJ~j ~ ~ Z'fzt /J¡/hfJJL'Vc:.. íY7 Mh...¡)¡µJ 1)10/'0 Name Address W~'¥1/ r¡fio t3lÎ jy¡)rJC'{ M'I 0NNy:fJLC U] 7ro~7 , :JmJj/ß¡ PO{, C ]Ji J.r {If fW Address jLD\ç \$,\ÞlYVt( Iðr SVLt1n~\AU 1~o57 Address ~ ~~MOv\~fj t\JIJvv\I ~ Name tVIj~ D W ~/ M J..V"~! Afv\lýjO /tlt'lw.-.; Name JTk ~l.rrt»J Name (t I) Address ¡4-H r3~Wt :AVf. . flDot .J~.{;.A6f'>,"··l Address 7D7l{ <JyJ"fle'[)vVb $rL, jrpJ ðp;íf'y'i¿ Address t{QfO ~~1 ß/.J. fir/. $'3 Address / éJi Þo WpJtfti ¡ I.fffl¡ é7 0YI'/GJ>/} CI} 9J'Ïij/ Address f7"f-:$Y ¡rVv-ovrJ;, ~ Name Address zü- \55 04/27/1gg4 05:23 550%40514 R PURl & B KHANNA t""~~1:. tJJ. Rancho San Antonio Park Visitors 'Against Vertical Tombstones at Gate of Heaven Cemetery May 31, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to dev op the.çemete "th vertical mllJ"kers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). I c:c t"OLll..A.f\ , , ! I¡ !'¡ 1-. ·1··' j', '(1.1 fi { ",L. I_I"" v II Address /', "~i! i r : .¡; , /I.'j ,·C,' '. I l·' v ~ '.,J . L (\ ··rLI{21.¡. Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address to - 15L.¡ Rancho San Antonio Park Visitors Against Vertical Tombstones at Gate of Heaven Cemetery May 31, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). -:r6 y;:;¡;.c-~ e7S- ß4004-'Ü,,¡(; (kill, >úN-r/./A4C ['4 Name Address J~ ~ 'J4 Cl4-AlItí.L Ih 7¡£¿/.kd 2o¿!.( tk ftk.ot-¡A fili(. 54MTD~ c4 1"$'"ó1ð Name Address /7 Î_ --12 ,,'~ ftL I c...~ ÞL. 0.kLt:ítà-'ÍA II d () . f'L ~j . i ~,Jft.,I)~ 10 rJ f--0~~ vv, ~-:ç:;;s /~Þf Name ,oJiru--_ ..Áddress / /) . . ~ /l - T / ~ 13m..J1).ftr f1r.. ~ ~~/L /Ó'f;J'/S"(!¿f(11. U7 ~N7rS-O¡1" .Nam~ / Address ft;{¡ke-. ;jo£r 65>1 /I//;d/fOD-&e é?:Ço;; /5,,1--< 4.. Name Address ~.:;.~\¡~ ~_~___~ ~N\.M. ~~ ~.~ '-' Name /1/"tl...., Address K~~. l-la/lrht.o,- }¿5¿ L 1"-- ~ . (' _ ~~ \ Ii BriaY) Address -. ~V:~ t)..QJ.~}J~ 2l{b(J ~ú~ La, 4HD:5 \4- Name Vt.<o-c.. A dress ~ f'iluoÞ< ~ Z. :;5"S-5'"" ok1 <MI+.\;- C¡-"'.... /!w1l...e, r~ CA - ~e (P{J I.- Address /-:/ f41L-£)-- lM.i..MCi\JA~y' POd- weü.¡ 11.{070 ~C/ Address (../µ(, WJ S- !hr]fJ1ìiÂ>\ Þtr.. Çv",µ~\#h..é Cf¡.'Y¡ i\ddress ' '0'1... Crc.\j 0/'0 Name '5:; r-:;- F,/ùtnc,'. L7- mfN V,i..IJ(1} '-IjOfO Address 20 -151 /" .---- Rancho San Antonio Park Visitors Against Vertical Tombstones at Gate of Heaven Cemetery May 31,2005 The undersigned object to the approval ofthe application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop t emetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). /I AA~ Name 7fs- ~Vl(/¿)()Ö~ Los A ¡-/os. 6f 7~cJ2f Áddress JJ.~ 9ovWuJw-.- Name 210 6uu'cG A.k, ~ III eMf t1¢OÝ.D Address . AJ2t~e I¡'~ 5<:-, <- S~HcnJ &fL.,U Name ~~;, ~'^" 4' (t,- Na e 4met~ _~S ~1)l~q£f~ ~ Name ~~ ~~~ C ~þrý\'-r~¥Yì Nam&' . ~7;£ Csf/lf!;:f,?, ~øtZ ~,~ Name 2'!2<fZ.. Ç/¡k CT- Ü)J H-jo.r jh/fr Address 9'(02ý IO/bO H/(.<......c$4'"' f/òA.', f!."f'I:'1<.'f1W, c..1A Address <¡.. "'Y (!JlbO cklr.(~. {l,f)'/('f"ÌIotO/1..ro{(P i\ddress I yð'o La.. I/'Q/\ ~ ß/. 10 r /ff~} Address J k1 "t Ý 0 ;¿ Ý ?'17 G~l. C* LD$ bs ~OV Address ý1S ~'¡/VC1'~ /)v: Lx /41-1~ ~~ Address 123'3(, O~ 1*, Address ~aï /3&! AW.y' Lvt. n,~-h'no I Cf+: Address 75011- /b"3Ç ,~~~ ~ ¿.j') M Address 9 ~ ( ~ 4t-t oy Ut- !-tç- M~ ~ Address ") <t' 2-'1 2.0 - \S<)? Rancho San Antonio Park Visitors I Against Vertical Tombstones at Gate of Heaven Cemet¢ry May 31,2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). .v~~Çbs~ Name \ ~, ~Jfl\ Name ~5~ Name IQ M~ (HI'tt.I1"ft1'\ ~) Name ~Tb~ Na ð~~_ ~?-4- 4ßL/~Jt' _ Name 6-€L7éJlJ \tWt1Y1Wlt:( vdi Name k1 ~sø-- tAl¡ w J <V -~=~, 9DS" r::.,..~~ -1~1A- Wffl LA- ~ Address M1 Vi~ mí1Jß_N¿, LDSCA:/4ffr&) Address / D-?J? f(ì ì ~IIJ) Q -Me (1ì<) ~S ~ Add s cjt-/:2 ß~ ~ ~ (J~ ('A Address 137 SWJOI!'.])1(. SLJIJNW,4Lt¡ 0+ - 9J.¡.D'6b Address 1032-5 P/.VM ¡!tEl> L.Ñ¡ (!."'¡;;'/l'fINoJefo "IS'D1t Address l{ð-- ~~ W.:L¡ Co 5 cJ::H Address J}..J 7'1 b}llI77Jp Dr LAI-/- 9,/()z 7' Address 1),,171 Nt/I 70p Dr ¿#-/f 9t¡02V Address . :J.{)~ ì'>GVOAl~¡"¡/I<.~ A/I(A ~ . Address q'tCA-O \~'\ U\-Jf,la Nf 1 ~. C:1r '\ l{-01.-"T Address &~3 (S. Q~ol.t)fu~ L05 A/f<vS ,cA Address g., '102. c- 1.r)-lsq Ar~ g~",- Name ~g~s Name . lIML' ~ Name Rr;¡¡ 0. ~ b,u/ p,~JJ.~~ ~ame ~ S ~~\ó\o ~e ~~ Name j ~ Name Name Name Name Name C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition.doc 10 L\D\ \jut.-P.~~ D)-, Los. Àtk>.s / ut'l.~~y A ress 1 ~{(¡'( Cre~C:t, 4(!,a.~ CI1 ~i' Address Sß2- ~ Q. ~~ (>Aqtfrmt ~ Address q C 2- P"III"~MIµ fr- ~ fftttx CA Address '14024 \\S""b£ b Ò ~ t Ì\>~5 Ä dress q~ ,~5 (~$ 0 cP- [A)ç ~$, Or q~OV{ Address ( /If '1~ ~ ~JI-AOð'aJ0- Address '3'" Asrer /....., t....fu".... I CA 'tS"b ''1 Address Address Address Address Address Address ZO-IÚJO May 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29.\2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to1permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with vertic I markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). '1'--- ¡N?2C¡ SVC(~iV10r" (/: (¡,,,ì.U{ÚW. c Address' I 1 L:: Ctrð7> (eJ &~-' I( P--:" Address 2 1- rQV Odc IU0 ~J Address .1~"5\ Offk $41L~ Rd-- Address 2'3S'SS- (}¿,¿/J;¡1f¡ /2¿ Address i ~w,~~ ame Name Name C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition.doc <. "y,~) òf'rX (!'-4.~ ~) Address \ÇJq3~ ~~ WI V'(' Addre )ð1 fl SYr ""',vz [j.·¡(--C Addréss 023 {,3t 21w.k rbÁ tJd - Address . '2. '3 6:' -:.¡. P U-\-C..I (. 0' A K.. {,,§\:Î Address 22M 4- ß 1«ti- OðJ'C0'j Address Address Address lo -Iwl Name Address / Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address -- Name Address Name Address ~~"YL"" . . (,iÛJ').{J< 1'-- !\III\ Î\. r.t- . N f ,-.- ff! a~ (eta{ Sck~ G(ff \^-/l ~ ame Name C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition.doc 2 I ð 32 q S ';;{C<.-W1(J1.£ Clnt,J,- ':-lï)-0\ {j Ad ss ~I " . I (. " J)I, ltC h ,,;ck (I,ck lv,,! L'-þ..uÞriC Address 'I [0'1'-(1 S1LtlW\or€- 'Dr. Cr-l"", Address I {017f ~crLy/'(~\ Address Address W -(lPZ- June 8, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval ofthe application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop t¥ Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). J~ ¡J iJ l:/¿ (ð'¡ 7r:- .Ji~ QJ ~~ cA'1QYr ) Name Address ~.p LA f\.-Z~wÙ: Name 'J<LrrJr1 Lf2q ÆYV ~/rv Name é{M.·/ ~"'^~ Name ~'<4<-l/-ifLJ 6-c~,- Name IO:)I\{ ,A.ÁD.(\JJ<:-.\~ (JJ1Jfe),'vu, iAqjCJ1f Address 1D4k5 "-bd)~-j, Ql~# Address y tOC¡gs A~ c.¡, '7~o{4 Address (O,/J'S ¡Jl~ &- ~ 9Ó{j/f Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address '2o-(tß June 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29,2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). £-;~~ . ~ L-¡ ~,,~.J,-, jc/:J2) ß/\-vJr4 Name Address ,. - __--....r . :1<"'-2',( CG Name;' -~/tg Name J to"? I L II¿ ('¿,-I \ zc" Address (yJ, C-t. Ie JU2 rí¿/¡{À.Æft;.. c-r. Address ..'1 .. ", ' ~¡e/'I':¡ ¿ L tt,~ , / C' +7 z I,G/"L12.frt c.f Address J\ ,! L .\í Name /'V\O\Q\~' .~L'" ) " ' \\0'+(1\ \~LL Address \ ,_-, V (' V ')() ") ''''--( 0 C, Address ioÇ;"'1 .rt""i(Á !+e~ C{ . Address Ci. ~\ \¡\ ;,1., Name (~ .(, f~ ~\~. L.(.t. W\ú\h, Name J.511i)tL ~Ì>fI6~ll Name -fV'ð.1k f&JtJcJ~ Name I Q ç 0,,2 þl: J<' Ii ¿ 1 /I tf Address \0~\ 2.~.:vet..- crt, Address ¿Ò~Id. pf_mLtz< ûf. Address Name Address Address Name Name Address C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition.doc 1--0 -t (p4 April 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval ofthe application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner ofthe Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop ~e Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a}2-foot cross). If;;'~ ß 9"r~~ .J 3:nc': {)o/. dll¡ jJ~ N 'eo' ~essCt4 q U/f- Name Ci\-rlo P",,,-".Cc..(CA""'-- -JC//t(!¿f~0--<-. ~ Name Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition.doc '2-0 -lta5 ~c, ~2005 Name If &: ~Æ~./ Name /Þ <¡II c..v/./' ~:Rc.. Address ~~ 1'_ _.IJ .J P_ _ ¿ > ð-....- Address ê(<{e~,~(o &.4~ c7' . :B. ~.~ ~N"~ ~¿~)Ý'} /0',10 , J.J.J!/( I1wnmÚY1Jrj}r-t) CufWi;ro Address Name Address Address Name Name Address Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Name Address C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition.doc 11 Zo-/(o(p April 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29,2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). F· ( ; C!\f:{J !f lM .zSJe Q J Ji/u Eu.kYcV1 OCl/{ ú...4./ Ì\(ame Address I Þ ~~L., &01 A vc ~.J,~ T G\, V'Cx<' Stp.VlVI)IV"'- \e Address 'I Name c ;;'01 ',hj r,p¡c(I-C\ Tr:-,/ý', <)" '1.'"ì'IA{O Address 11¿ lD!ftV'1i2S h~,,,/l / (1'1' PI ~~ ,-4' Address /'\. Name J ~ [;)~U\ l 0' N e v .~ - C;'v~o..X Ü'. Name d~~, ê:»"" JJI-.. 2 \ 2 '2, Ü Hört'é' 5\("0 u\ (¿J Address , (u{'''rhY'C (-1\ CY¿i C Name + /-~\= r( - M~ ~TOvZCLL f..j ~ 'J '1' VÜ-.v·N Co"'''-> ddress 'H\I , [11 j~O"D' \()')\ C>SC" A V {/ CA '3 4 ~C) Address FÃR 5 VI¡0 Name ~B:1 3~ ' \/ qS-¡ ~ 7Þrýúl. .n-; SJ 1s1'L6 Address -II \~ ')7 NWd1Jjo"'.~ Aft 11"5 M9W ~~ Ad ess Name ~Q'Î\ ~ \,)\Yì<,en Name 15~\ \:J\ç.)\J'-\\~) Ì'f S\JN,\'\~.\I G¡'\ro6=\-- Adaress I Name Address Name Address Name Address \ I ~ ZD - ¡ <.pï C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\NIy Documents\petition.doc \~ April 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29,2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the" ner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop e e ry with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name Name C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition.doc :J-II ~ I C "'iVYOAJ {),.r¡.¿ UJ~y l~C¡6Ad~~ / Address Address Address Address Address Address Address Address Address Address Address Address '2D -I (PC? April 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). ~~ ~ IO'fb.r ~,.¡~ GL W(öR.1'wOPt7sÐ/> ~~ I Address M ffRA ~A-N KI1f< %lifwfA Name NIMIli+ ~i/IJ~;FQ.Q~ Name ,~, .sQ'J'iI~ Name t.or-¡ Þê MA ¡d£J1 N E Address ur / WPla!.-7~J CM~ l~ 1t'4-t1Li MA t>I2'",\} E Address (ì. , CUpfe.·1INiJ ItA ·)Ç1JIL, Address Name Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address W-lCoC¡ C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition.doc April 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop e Cemetery \\iith vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). Robert H. Miller 11008 Sycamore Drive Name CuþdrlinG5CA 95014 Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition.doc ZO-110 April 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with v 'cal markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). ~ Name C) ,--..' , C . " ~M.J.~}I\/\ ~-k'--.I . Name ;;/ ¡3D c. >f;i/ fÐ;0 'ùÆ.k w4 ~ Address '",J.[ n() G'L~~",,^ ()j-2 Addit¡ss \ \j.o...........~---lA , ,~ w- I7l CIBC WORLD MARKETS Fax:650-234-2450 May 25 2005 10:36 P.04 April 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the apPJoval of the application dated March 29,2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate ofHeavcn Cemetery, 10 permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-£00t cross). ~ Name . ¡tL(,d.._ (¿'yt..J-. IO...¡qtp MÞd.l2ANlTA cr. Q5bIY Address %'1" t"",vllc_~ Name {dL,'1' p1uN1~.....1-c. (-to. "r~olt..1 Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address C;\Doçumcnt5 and Settings\wojta&nh\My DoçumenU\petition,doc 3 '20.' 172 FR(J1 ?RIEL FAX 1'1). 6509039353 May. 25 2005 10: 141=1'1 PI ~-" April 7, 2005 The undersigned object to the approval oflbe application dated Marçh 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), dJ.e owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to ~deV~IOP the C.:l~f!-tery witb vertical markers and statuaIy (including a 32-::::::;'p,o,l . _ /~ 1œæ~O"'Drivø I d ;~e 9, -. . n Addres~~"" CA &5014 JW" ~ MV< thy & Becky P... Addt-.. 11:18:38 8".":~lIIure UIlV8 Nam _ c-:üoo, CA 95Ot4 Name Address Name Address Name Address Name AddreS$ Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address C:\Docummbi 1IIId~·"Doaummbi\petitiaa..doc: 5 Zo--ll~ PAGI::1/1 0512412005 22:30 The undersign objeclto !he approval of !he application dated March 29, 2005 by !he Diocese of San Jo "Owner"), !he owner of !he Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to pennil!he Owner to deve~ \he ~~etery with vertical markers and sLaLuary (including a 32- fool cross). \ \íM\!\ ¡ J 10869 Sycamore Court, Cupertino, CA95014 Name \ V ~I h. Address ~~ ^ _. WI'-.../' 10869 Sycamore Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 - Name I Address I. r April 7, 2005 Nanle Address Name Address Name Address Nanle Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition .doc 20- 114' OS/27/05 FRI 18:24 FAX 408 486 9851 AMAT CMP ENGINEERING 1!001 Apri17,2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to pennit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). ~(i ~iTt~( I~~ Name' ~"'9 cA 9.soll{ Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address NI Ar1r11"PCõ!~ .-:-/ì ' N; IV'. Clî'í ÖP C.uPGR -rf}JD k Ir-rH fè. '-()J 401.) 9H TO AJ N N ?' 1- Name Address Name Address c:IDocwneots and ScttiDg$\wojtasnh\My ()oçUffiØ1ts\petition.doc 2.0 - 115 :" :~ ( -,... : l;:; '! _J :--: .- ~:._:.C:; i April 7, 2005 The undersigned objèct to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "'Owner'), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to . develop the Cemelery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-fOO1 cros.s). -¡:; ~Ql-<-<-./ ;<,~~C/\ I'f.A)CU'J1.¿¿ Name '2//'71 ('it'< ^æV\. Oä.A...~. 4..t; Address ~r,-<.--tI';LÙ ¡(->€'/ý' Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Addres.s Name Address Name Address C:\I)'JCW",,"l~ and s..:ttißt...\wojtu¡l1lt.\My Oocumerat~\pd:ilion.doc 'Z.O,..nlo Tr,w,·...I ~:TOI C;O¡,~/~ StØSE;Szaøt, O.LoweMl April 7, 2005 'The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Owner to develop the Cemetery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). Jill G(di~'\i Name JvJ /kÚtfW /(1',52 S:[""'J¡rrv 0'" CI,,/)(r1~O (lA %ö1-r' A dress I , Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Address Name Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\petition.doc 3 lO-1 ì1 0G/0B/2005 21:35 1G509G071B7 JAMES April?, 2005 The undel'$ÍpIod object to the .pproval of the .pplication dated March 29.. 2005 by the Dioce.. of San Jose (the I "Owner"), the awner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to pennitlhe Owner to dcvelcp the Cemctcry with venicaJ markers and ata "',.', ;(in~.. i. _...._3...2:0~..~.0 croos). ' ,C~ . l' , ~'-?/(~f5,/~"Ü1.i:.ti7¿ .......- Name .. Addre.. PAGE 01 1.0-1l'r FROM FAX NO. 16509658626 Jun. 09 2005 10:24AM P1 ~ 2005 The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of Jo (the "Owner"), the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the Ûwnerto d the Ce tery with vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). tû /VrC£ i'A7/~( ~'J(JA.O~ W~ Address Name Address Name Address . Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address { (Q 5 ö) '1 3~ ~73b/ FA-i -to ~ryn ~Q~~ C:\Docu.man", and SdiDß5\wojtunb\My ~\pdiboD..doc 7 ur nq June 3"', 2005 Ciddy Wordell City of Cupertino Community Development Planning 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Gate of Heaven Cemetery/Use Permit Dear Ms. Wordell: The undersigned object to the approval of the application dated March 29, 2005 by the Diocese of San Jose, the owner of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, to permit the development vertical markers and statuary (including a 32-foot cross). The residents of Oak Valley purchased homes adjacent to the Cemetery relying on the Permit granted in 1962 which expressly conditioned the development of the Cemetery as "a Memorial Park with flat horizontal markers...." The use of vertical markers and statuary (including a 32 foot cross) will cause our homes to lose significant monetary value since they will be a constant visual reminder that a cemetery is adjacent to our housing development. Some cultures already have difficulty with a cemetery being adjacent to our housing development. To highlight this fact by these visual reminders is not acceptable to us as community. The undersigned are residents of Oak Valley who live on Canyon Oak Way and whose properties border the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. As such, they are among the ones who will be most affected by the proposed construction. The owners of 8 out of 11 Oak Valley homes that are bordering the Cemetery are asking you to not approve the application. If you have any questions or comments about this letter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned residents directly. Very truly yours, c.D -l~O Avner & Katy Schwarz 21090 Canyon Oak Way John & Pam Mcnelis, 21100 Canyon Oak Way Steven & Catherine Yoshimoto 21120 Canyon Oak Way Howard & Annette Silver 21130 Canyon Oak Way Cara de Urioste ~ &e.o"õQ. 21140 Canyon Oak Way Keith & Michelle Hocker 21150 Canyon Oak Way . - 211G8 Oðlt)OI, Oak'''-,,\!) John & Diane Berens 21170 Canyon Oak Way Dean & Rosa Hamilton 21180 Canyon Oak Way Unmesh & Tulika Agarwal<4 21200 Canyon Oak Way __ _~ 6/"://2.0_?-.7-_ . b/ ~~7:Z5 --~ß----------------j-~-- . 10\"'-\ s -- - - -------------\-'::\Q ___~~-~-~---Æ/3lVS-¡ :;i£/lí£ <JMjLJ~___~h/os-· ---------_.---------------_.---------- ==-_lJ_ 0___ 0 (1 ~_j-{ Q1Y]? - -------- K"no,_ _~~ _ t42/-0)~ ___~~ok:u---_-~l?;.1 05 W-l~\ 6/1/2005 City of Cupertino Community Development Planning 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Gate of Heaven Cemetery/Use Permit Dear City Planner and City Council Members: Reference is made to that certain Application to Permit Certain Changes and Improvements to the Cemetery (the "Application") filed with you on March 29,2005 by Mr. Thomas P. O'Donnell of Ferrari Ottoboni LLP on behalf of the Diocese of San Jose, the owner ofthe Gate of Heaven Cemetery. The permit requests consent and permission to employ the following: · Vertical T ombstones( the current permit constrains the cemetery to flat markers only) · A 32 ft tall crucifix (Jesus crucified on a cross) · A new plaza with 6 feet tall statuaries located directly behind the Canyon Oak Way park On behalf ofthe residents of Oak Valley Estates, we request that you deny the Application in its entirety. Attached is a copy of a petition signed by residents of Oak Valley Estates objecting to the grant of the Application. The residents of Oak Valley Community believe these modifications will have a significant negative impact on our community. Specifically, the impact will be: . Financial- our home values will be negatively impacted . Emotional- several cultures find these markers offensive and disturbing We are not opposed to living next to the Catholic Cemetery; however, we are opposed to a dramatic change in appearance ofthe Cemeterv, with numerous vertical markers visible to several residents from their homes. Let's be clear about one thing: these changes target business expansion for the Cemeterv at the financial and emotional expense of our Oak Vallev communitv. These changes will impact the entire Oak Valley community and will also adversely impact those individuals who choose to recreate at the open space (Rancho San Antonio Park) that borders the Cemetery. The residents of Oak Valley Estates purchased homes adjacent to the Cemetery relying on the Permit granted in 1962 which expressly conditioned the development ofthe Cemetery as "a Memorial Park with flat horizontal markers...." (emphasis added). The use of vertical tombstones, a 32 ft tall crucifix and a new plaza behind the park will cause our homes to lose significant monetary value since these markers will be a constant visual reminder that a cemetery is adjacent to our housing development. C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\cupertinoletter.doc Zo-\~fL Some cultures already have difficulty with a cemetery being adjacent to our housing development. To highlight this fact by these visual reminders (to say nothing ofthe 6:00 a.m. burials that go on and the funeral processions causing traffic congestion in the area on an almost daily basis) is not acceptable to us as community. While we sympathize with grieving families that they may find the restriction burdensome (and that they may have to find another cemetery so that when they come to visit their buried loved ones a few days a year, they can enjoy the vertical markers and statuary), they do not have to live with the daily viewing of such monuments (reminding us all that death is inevitable) and they do not have to live with the decreased value of the homes in the neighborhood which in turn will result in less property taxes being generated. We, as residents of Oak Valley Estates, will have to live with those ramifications. As a speaker at the 05/18/05 Planning Commission Meeting, I would like to express deep concern that issues raised by numerous IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS opposing this expansion were overlooked __ not only by the Planning Commission but by Community Development staff. I would again like to underscore the following facts: FACT: The Gate of Heaven Cemetery is currently zoned and has restricted development of the Cemetery as a "Memorial Park with flat Horizontal markers". Although, the Cemetery has been planning expansion for over fourteen months they have just publicly expressed plans and applied for permits to erect vertical markers including a 32 ft crucifix, a plaza with 6 ft statuaries, and thousands of tombstones -- all in the near future and all visible from homes in the Oak Valley Neighborhood. THE IMPACT IS BOTH FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL: Those with line- of-site views would end up with direct views of a crucifix, tombstones, and other vertical markers for at least 10 years (before screening becomes adequate). For those without direct line-of-site views, there would be an extremely impactful and fundamental change of character in the neighborhood as a result of these changes which would impact home values, re-sale ability and be emotionally distressful for certain cultures. Many cultures and individuals would not be able to live with the daily viewing of such monuments reminding us all of death. FACT: Although the permits has not yet been approved, Ciddy Wordell HAS given the Cemetery permission to erect 'temporary' structures as she feels this is a compromise position for the Cemetery to be able to please its customers. The Problem: Ciddy gave the Cemetery approval even after receiving a petition signed by over 90% of the Oak Valley Residents strongly objecting to vertical markers and expansion, receiving numerous phone calls, e-mails and letters. AND, when several of us repeatedly called her (and Steve) asking why is there construction taking place at the Cemetery if they do not have any permits... ..we receive no response. At the May 18th meeting with Ciddy and the Cemetery, Oak Valley specifically requested that the Cemetery be required to Cease and Desist Current Construction as they have not permits. No reply would be given by Ciddy or Bob, although Bob shook his head slightly and looked down. FACT: The Cemetery is already in violation ofthe Permit granted in 1962 which expressly conditioned the development of the Cemetery as "a Memorial Park with FLAT horizontal C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\cupertinoletter.dolQ '[0- tt>~ markers...." (emphasis added). The Cemetery has over 1 00 vertical tombstones on the property without permits. We ask these tombstones be immediately removed. FACT: The residents of Oak Valley purchased homes adjacent to the Cemetery relying on the Permit granted in 1962 which, again, expressly conditioned the development with ONL Y FLAT horizontal markers. Although, we all made a decision to be next to a Cemetery with FLAT horizontal markers"",NOT ONE OF US finds it acceptable to be next to a Cemetery with VERTICAL markers..... this is extremely difficult for many cultures.....again, contributing to the decrease in our home values. FACT: Expanding the Cemetery significantly increases traffic into Oak Valley and the immediate areas. Has there been a Traffic Impact Analysis ifthis project were to be approved? Does the City of Cupertino have the resources to manage this traffic increase? FACT: The Cemetery continues to start construction as early as 5:30 am both during week and on weekends. They all trucks to be let onto to property and these large rigs are left idling and have the 'beep, beep' warning sounds as they move around. Families with small children are constantly awakened. The Cemetery has had repeated complaints from Oak Valley for the past 14 months and three complaints with three police visits within the past three weeks with little improvement. FACT: CEMETERY BEING DlSENGENUOUS: Oak Valley has experienced the Cemetery being disingenuous... ..cited are several reasons......... o Cemetery's failure to maintain ponds coupled with lack of failure to address this with us properly. o Cemetery's failure to communicate proposed landscaping plans with Oak Valley Residents properly coupled with pre-formal-permit construction. o Only residents bordering cemetery given formal notice. Hammond Way residents completely overlooked. No consideration given to non-line-of-site residents. o Original letters to "Iine-of-site" residents neglected to mention (a) Veterans plaza/statuaries (b) 32' crucifix. (Bob countered that the original letter included the artist rendering of the crucifix. Several neighbors shook their heads at this. Uncertain of what was actually sent out.) Residents feel plans might've been purposefully downplayed. o Failure to remove signage. Hammond Oak Way resident long ago asked Cemetery to remove neglected sign from Cemetery's property. Despite Cemetery's assurances this would happen, sign still hangs today. o Failure to curb construction noise: Residents bordering cemetery have had issues with cemetery conducting noisy/disturbing construction outside of city-allowed hours. Residents feel cemetery has acted in disrespectful and inadequate manner with regard to this issue. o City granted temporary permit to begin Veteran's Plaza construction, and Cemetery has proceeded with construction, despite obvious objections of Oak Valley Residents. 1.0 - Le>4 C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\tv1y Documents\cupertinoletter.do~ We urge the Cupertino City Council to support the conditions ofthe Permit granted to the Cemetery in 1962 which strictly prohibits the use of vertical markers or statuaries and to NOT grant any changes to these permits as this would severely impact close to 200 families homes and well-being. We also asked that the City of Cupertino mandate the Cemetery: · Follow all noise ordinance laws seven days per week... . and if they do not impose stiff penalties. · Maintain all ponds in the Oak Valley neighborhood; consistently and thoroughly · The Cemetery has over 100 vertical tombstones on the property without permits. We ask these tombstones be immediately removed. · The Cemetery has already completed the Veterans Memorial (again, without permits) and we ask that all vertical markers in this section be required to be immediately removed. Lastly, we ask that ifthe Cemetery is to every again violate the 1962 permit and any of the above mentioned items that they immediately be imposed fines of great significance. Sincerel(,) 1)- /,/7 carade6~ V ( COPIES SENT TO: CUPERTINO MAYOR: Council Member Patrick K wok Tel: 408.777.3191 Email: pkwok@cupertino.org Mail: Cupertino City Hall 10300 Tone Avenue Cupel1ino, CA 950\4-3232 ------------------------------------- Council Members Patrick Kwok-- Mayor Tel: 408.257.4934 Email: pkwok@cupertino.org Richard Lowenthal Tel: C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\cupertinoletter.do<4 20 - 1~5 408.777.3 193 Email: rlowenthal(~cupertino.org Sandra L. James Tel: 408.777.3195 Email: s jame-s@,cupeliino.org Dollv Sandoval Tel: 408.725.8939 Email: dsandoval@cupertino.org Web: w\.vw .do! Jysandoval.com l<xis Wang Tel: 408.257.7516 Email: kwang@cupertino.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF CUPERTINO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: Steve Piasecki (Community Development Director) (408)-777-3308 steveDripcuDertino.org Ciddy Wordell (City Planner) 408-777-3236 cvnthiaw(â)cuDertino.org Angela Chen(Planning Commissioner) Lisa Giefer (Planning Commissioner) 12iefer(a¡sbc210bal.net Marty Miller (planner Commissioner) m millerúVinterorealestate.com Taghi Saadati(Planning Commissioner) tsaadati(ã),cunertino.ore: Gilbert Wong, Chair (Planning Commissioner) Gwon2212(a¡aol.com General Contact Info Office: 408-777-3308 Fax: 408-777-3333 C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\cupertinoletter.d0'5 20 -l~~ Gate of Heaven Cemeterv Robert Lindberg( Director of Catholic Cemeteries) 650-280-3248(direct) 650-428-3730 ext 212 linebereiWdosv.ore Gate of Heaven Cemetery 22555 Cristo Rey Dr Los Altos, CA 94024 C:\Documents and Settings\wojtasnh\My Documents\cupertinoletter.do() lO-l~n Vertical grave markers sought Page 1 of 1 Posted on Thu, Jun. 09, 2005 Vertical grave markers sought By Michael Cronk Mercury News Residents in the Oak Valley Estates neighborhood of Cupertino are opposing a proposal to allow vertical grave markers and statuary, including a 32-foot crucifix, at the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery. The Diocese of San Jose, which owns the cemetery has applied for a change in the use permit approved in 1962 requiring the cemetery to be developed as a memorial park with flðt, horizontal markers. The planning commission is scheduled to consider the proposal at its meeting Tuesday. Bob Undberg, director of Catholic Cemeteries, said there has been a . . constant flow" of requests from families wanting vertical markers to memorialize their loved ones. Neighbors said they bought their homes because the original use permit, approved by the Santa Clara County Supervisors before the property was annexed to the city of Cupertino, was conditioned on the cemetery having flat markers. They contend the proposed changes would make their neighborhood less desirable, reduce property valuès and spoil the open space views of residents and those visiting the county's nearby Rancho San Antonio Park. .. . Right now, it definitely looks like a park, and it is visible from a lot of people's homes, n said resident Michelle Hocker. . . I have three relatives who are buried there. They chose that cemetery because of the way it looks." Hocker said in the past, Gate of Heaven officials had made' . a concerted effort to keep the cemetery as it looks today" and should continue to do so. If the change in the use permit is approved, existing sections af the 58-acre cemetery will remain with flat markers, and raised markers of 30 inches or less would be placed in some new sections where there would be little or no visual impact to neighboring residents, Lindberg said. The proposed crucifix of patina bronze would be screened by trees and face into the cemetery. It would, Undberg said, add . . a more religious Identity to the cemetery." Gate of Heaven is one of only two cemeteries in the South Bay owned by the diocese. Calvary Catholic Cemetery in East San Jose does allow vertical markers. IF YOU'RE INTERESTED The planning commission meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 p.rn Tuesday in the city council chambers at the Cupertino Community Hall on Torre Avenue (between City Hall and the Cupertino Ubrary). Contact Michael Cronk at mcronk@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5063. C ::!005 MerclIryNell'scom and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.mercurynews.colll '2D-I~~ http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/locaI/I1851577.htm?template=conte... 6/9/2005 Calvary Catholic Cemetery 2655 Madden Avenue San José CA 95116 tel 408-258-2940 fax 408-258-5614 t Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery 22555 Cristo Rey Drive Los Altos CA 94024 tel 650-428-3730 fax 650-428-3733 t St.John Catholic Cemetery Old Piedmont Road Milpitas CA 95116 tel 408-258-2940 fax 408-258-5614 Catholic Cemeteries of the Diocese of San J osé November 8, 2005 RECEIVED NOV 0 B 2005 BY; Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Application No. U-2005-04 Applicant: Robert Lindberg (Gate of Heaven Cemetery operated by the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose) Address: 2555 Cristo Rey Drive Resolution No. 6314 of the Planning Commission Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: This appeal focuses on two conditions in the subject resolution: 3. Markers and Statuary. (Denial of new upright markers.) 4. Landscape Plan. (Requirement of further public hearing and Planning Commission approval of a detailed landscape plan prior to the implementation of the Use Permit.) After the Cemetery submitted its initial application, it followed the Planning Commission's suggestions and met with various representatives of groups opposed to the application. As a result of those meetings, significant compromises and modifications occurred. The Cemetery understood that Community Development staff ("staff') would be making a recommendation based on the principles of public benefit and reasonable property rights and expectations of the neighbors and the Cemetery owners. Staff recommended that the Commission focus on the following questions in considering the application: 1. To what degree does the application and landscape screening alter the low profile character of the cemetery as viewed !Tom the public trails, streets and neighboring homes? 2. Can the upright markers and statuary be reasonably hidden from view through their strategic placement and landscape screening? 3. Do the application and landscape screening unreasonably obstruct views of surrounding open space across the cemetery lands !Tom adjacent public trails, streets and neighboring homes? The Cemetery's application satisfied the concerns raised by these questions and won staff's recommendation of approval. l..ö-l~ Calvary Catholic Cemetery 2655 Madden Avenue San J osé CA 95116 tel 408-258-2940 fax 408-258-5614 t Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery 22555 Cristo Rey Drive Los Altos CA 94024 tel 650-428-3730 fax 650-428-3733 t St. John Catholic Cemetery Old Piedmont Road Milpitas CA95116 tel 408-258-2940 fax 408-258-5614 Catholic Cemeteries of the Diocese of San J osé Condition 3 - Markers and Statuary. The upright markers are culturally significant in honoring the loved ones of many members of the community which the Cemetery seryes. As a result of the request from many members of the community, the Cemetery submitted its original application. The Cemetery modified its original application and reduced the number of proposed upright Iharkers from 4,393 to 2,500. The proposed upright markers are to be placed up against a series of landscaped flagstone retaining walls. Staff confirmed that the proposed areas for these upright markers are not visible from the residential or open space areas. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District confirmed that the proposed sites are not directly visible from District land. The Cemetery proposes adoption of a condition consistent with staff s recommendation allowing upright markers only in the areas shown on the site plan, the colors of which shall be muted and blend with the flagstone retaining walls and permitting the existing 36 vertical markers to remain. Condition 4 - Landscape Plan. The Planning Commission required that a detailed landscape plan be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the implementation of the use permit. This is burdensome, unnecessary and unfair. This is borne out by the Cemetery's recent attempt to remove some dying trees and replace them with healthy ones. Planning staff informed the Cemetery's arborist that there was a "different process" for the Cemetery because the Cemetery was now required to prepare and submit for approval a detailed landscape plan before removing any diseased or dying trees. Moreover, the Cemetery had already agreed to conditions conceroing tree height (condition 5) and the buffer area (condition 6) along the east property line adjacent to the resident's parcels. The Cemetery objects to the condition requiring further review of the landscaping relative to the Veteran's section because that landscaping has already been resolve by conditions 5 (tree height) and 6 (buffer zone). The Cemetery does not object to the review and approval by the Director of Community Development of the landscape plan relative to the upright marker areas. The Cemetery had already indicated that it would provide such a plan to the Director of Community Development. The Cemetery proposes that the following is the proper condition for landscaping approval: A landscape plan for the upright marker areas shall be approved by the Director of Community Development with landscape screening as determined by the Director. Consequently there is no need (and it would be unfair and burdensome) to condition the approval of the Cemetery's application on further public hearing, Planning Commission approval and the requirement of a detailed landscape plan for the entire Cemetery premises. Thank you for your consideration. :;¡¡ø ~ Robert K. Lindb g 1 See enclosed rendering. ZO - Iqo November 23,2005 (; I ~ t~ c.. l!J D.t:/.. l!·).:'¡ .J..rJ.. II - J.5. rf·,( \.J.. ttv- post~rj(.'..\.C 1(-).3 Petition of Reconsideration fõ) rm ~ ~ N~ ~ 8 ~ : ~ U:lj Members of the City Council; . CUPERTINO CITY CLERK I am writing to you in regards to the Appeal filed by Gate of Heaven Cemetery, that passed by a 3 to 2 vote on Tuesday, November 15, 2005, Pursuant to the City Code of Cupertino, under section 2.08.096, I'm writing this letter based on facts that I believe will affect the outcome of the vote. Under the Criteria for writing this letter ofreconsideration, I believe Item 4, "Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing" applies. 1. It is common knowledge that Patrick Kwok is on the Finance Council for St Josephs Church in Cupertino. As a member, he has a responsibility to see that the Church, and thus the Diocese of San Jose, remain solvent and financially sound. The matter before the Council about the decision to allow Vertical Cemetery Markers at Gate of Heaven is essentially a financial one. Gate of Heaven stands to increase revenue by selling vertical markers over horizontal markers. Gate of Heaven fails to state this as a main reason, but instead claims that it is religious one that benefits its customers, this is still no reason for changing the 1962 Use Permit disallowing vertical markers. Gate of Heaven will increase revenue and thus the Diocese of San Jose would benefit. Patrick Kwok has a clear conflict of interest in this matter and should have removed himself from the vote. 2. Sandra James made the remark during her discussion phase of the hearing that the Oak Valley Neighborhood now blocks the view of the valley from her husband's gravesite in the Veterans Section. She also states that when they bought the burial site, the view is what they liked most about the location. Now, the houses are in the way and this has . changed to environment for the worse. I believe this makes her biased in this case and demonstrates to me that her judgment and reasoning in the case suspect. In all likelihood, there could be some resentment towards the housing development no\.v since the cnviron.l'nent is penn:1L'1er~tly ch~~ged. She has net made an impartial decision about the Appeal. With all due respect, The City Council should review their decision base upon the above arguments. Respectfully; Keith Hocker 21150 Canyon Oak Way Cupertino Ca 95014 ~~ ?th 650-254-1333 EXHIBIT D 'Z6--lQl A. The Council may, at any time before adjournment of any council meeting, determine to reconsider an item of business previously acted upon at that council meeting. A motion to reconsider may only be made by a councilmember who was a member of the prevailing majority voting on the item. A motion to reconsider may be seconded by any councilmember. B. If a motion for reconsideration prevails, the Council is then free to reconsider the item either at the same council meeting or at any other council meeting established by the Council; provided, however, that the Council shall not reconsider an item at the same council meeting, in the following instances: I. Any action involving a public hearing which has been closed; 2. Any action, including appeals, regarding a zoning matter, use permit, subdivision map approval, variance, architectural and site approval or sign exception; 3. Any action involving the granting, modification or revocation of any permit issued by the City; 4. Any action which is quasi-judicial in nature. C. In such cases, the Council shall reconsider the item at another council meeting date established by the Council and shall direct the City Clerk to provide notification to the relevant parties or the general public, as the case may be. (Ord. 1697, (part), 1995; Ord. 1378, § I, 1986) 2.08.096' Reconsideration-Sought by Interested Person. A. Any interested person, prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory decision of the City Council, shall file a petition for reconsideration with the City Clerk within ten days after the decision. Failure to file a petition for reconsideration constitutes a waiver of the right to request reconsideration and the City Council's decision shall be final for all purposes. Upon timely receipt of a petition for reconsideration, the City Clerk shall schedule a reconsideration hearing to be commenced by the City Council no later than sixty days after the filing of the petition. Mailed notices of the date, time and place of such hearing will be provided to all interested persons at least ten days prior to the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing for reconsideration, the City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify its original decision, and may adopt additional findings of fact based upon the evidence submitted in any and all city hearings concerning the matter. B. A petition for reconsideration shall specify, in detail, each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration, precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial Zö - It:1L proceeding. The grOlmds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. I ¡ I 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its, jurisdiction. 4. Proof off acts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a. Not preceding in a manner required by law; and/or b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings off act; and/or c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. (Ord. 1807, § 1, 1999) 2.08.100 Written Communications. A. Written communications transmitted to a majority of the members of the City Council by any perSon in connection with a matter which is subject to discussion or consideration at a meeting of the City Council shall be delivered by the recipient Councilperson to the City Clerk who shall retain them as public records and shall otherwise treat them as written communications to the City Council. B. Written communications addressed to the City Council and delivered to the City Clerk shall be transmitted to each City Councilperson, the City Manager, and any department director having responsibility for the subject matter of the communication. Written communications which are relevant to a matter subject to being discussed or considered at a City Council meeting shall be included as supplementary material to that agendized matter. Other written communications may be placed on the agenda, as a separate item of business under written communications, by a Councilperson, City Manager or any department director having responsibility for the subject matter of the communication. (Ord. 1697, (part), 1995; Ord. 673, (part), 1975; Ord. 389, § 3.6, 1968) 2.08.105 Oral Communications. ~o- lC¡ 3 Page I of1 Mark Edwards From: Ma,k Edwards [mark@edwardsscharff.com] Friday, November 25, 2005 1 :48 PM cityclerk@cupertino.org JIMWW@aol.com; cbritton@openspace.org; sthielfoldt@openspace.org; cwoodbury@openspace.org; 'Jonas Roddenberry' Subject: Letter Petition for Reconsideration: Gate of Heaven Cemetery Matter: Applic. No. U-2005-04 Attachments: Letter Petition for Reconsideration 11-25-05.pdf; Appendix I - Pictures of Chinese Horizontal Markers at Gate of Heaven.pdf; Appendix 11- MROSD Ltr Supporting Reconsideration -11-25-05.pdf Sent: To: Cc: Cupertino City Clerk Attention: Ms. Kimberly Smith 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Petition for Reconsideration -- Gate of Heaven - Upright Marker Matter Application No. U-2005-04 by Robert Lindberg on behalf of the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery Dear Ms. Smith: Please find attached a Letter Petition for Reconsideration for the referenced matter. This Petition for Reconsideration relates specifically to the November 15,2005 decision of the City Council approving a change to the Gate of Heaven's Use Permit allowing the installation of upright markers. A signed hard copy of Petition for Reconsideration and Attaclunents has been dispatched to you today by US Mail. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Mark Mark S. Edwards, Esq. Edwards & Scharff LLP 2211 Park Boulevard Palo Alto, CA 94306 Ph: 650.330.1000; Fax: 650.330.1001; Cell: 408-892-1666 matk@e<lw'!Icisssáarff&QI!1 Vf.WW~~çlwardsscharff.cQI11 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is ONLY for the persons in the header. Unless otherwise noted, it (and any attachments) contains infomlation which is confidential, privileged, Of exempt from disclosure under relevant Jaw. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete the message. '2.0 - lq ~ 11/25/2005 Oak Valley Community Awareness November 25, 2005 Cupertino City Council 10350 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Petition for Reconsideration -- Gate of Heaven - Upright Marker Matter Application No. U-2005-04 by Robert Lindberg on behalf of the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery Dear Honorable Council Members: On behalf of citizens of Cupertino, visitors to Rancho San Antonio Park, and clients of the Cemetery who oppose the use of upright markers at Gate of Heaven, we respectfully request the honorable members of the City Council to reconsider the decision recorded on November 15, which reversed the Planning Commission's 5-0 decision of August 23, 2005 regarding a significant and material change to the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery's use permit, allowing the installation of upright markers. This Petition for Reconsideration relates specifically to the November 15, 2005 decision of the City Council approving a change to the Gate of Heaven' s Use Permit allowing the installation of upright markers. Background Over the past seven months, members of the local community and the Open Space District have, in good faith, openly worked with the Cemetery management to build consensus and resolve issues which were part of the Cemetery's Permit Application U- 2005-04. Through a series of meetings, and through significant concessions by both the local community and the Cemetery, 7 of the 8 issues were resolved and presented to the Planning Commission for approval on August 23. We requested, recommended and fully support the Planning Commission's approval ofthose seven issues. After reviewing the facts presented at the November 15 City Council Meeting pertaining to landscape review, we fully support the City Council's 5-0 decision denying the formal landscape review. In summary, we support and encourage the Cemetery's continued success of its Cupertino business, but we continue to oppose the Cemetery's request to change the Cemetery's use permit to allow upright markers. Grounds for Reconsideration This Petition for Reconsideration is made pursuant and responsive to Title 2, Section 2.08.096 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The specific grounds for reconsideration are provided within the framework of the relevant elements of the Municipal Code below. 2O-lQ':J Oak Valley Community Awareness A. "An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable . diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing." (§ 2.08.096, Paragraph B.1.) 1. The amount of inscription possible on horizontal markers was incorrectly stated as being limited in comparison to upright markers. During the City Council's discussion after the public hearing, Council member Sandra James presented a specific example, where she and her son were disappointed with not being able to include more details on the horizontal marker for her husband's grave. Although she intended this as support for her decision to back upright markers, and successfully used it to influence other members of the Council, it is not pertinent to the discussion. As a veteran, the horizontal marker provided for her husband by the US Government is limited in size and content to provide a uniform appearance and to provide specific information about the veteran. Mrs. James could have chosen to purchase a more detailed horizontal marker, which could have included the information that her son wanted inscribed on the horizontal marker. Presenting the example of a veteran's horizontal marker as typical, and not meeting the needs of the clients of the Cemetery, is misleading. It does not accurately represent the excellent job the Cemetery has been doing to provide as much detail in the inscriptions as needed by individual clients. Some of the larger horizontal markers in the Cemetery have 9 lines of inscription on them, and other horizontal markers even include pictures of the loved ones buried there. This is one of the reasons the clients of the Cemetery who initially ask for upright markers are willing to accept horizontal markers. During the public hearing, Father Gregory Kim, who is Chinese-American, explained that there are very specific criteria sought by the Chinese families to correctly show respect for their elders. The criteria includes: size, location of the grave, and full inscriptions including, honorific titles for the deceased, names of native places in China, and the names of descendents who erected them. He stated that in order to allow the necessary rows of Chinese characters, and fully honor their elders, Chinese families need to obtain headstones of a larger size. He also stated that small, flat headstones would result in criticism from friends and relatives. This is misleading, because there are many large horizontal markers in the Cemetery that have full inscriptions, located on a beautiful hillside, correctly honoring the Chinese elders buried there. Contrary to what was stated by Father Kim, the Cemetery has done an excellent job of meeting the needs of the Chinese community with proper inscriptions. Again, this is one of the reasons the clients of the Cemetery who initially ask for upright markers are willing to accept well-designed horizontal markers. Pictures of existing Chinese horizontal markers at the Cemetery are included in Appendix I of this document. 2 7o-tQt.p Oak Valley Community Awareness 2. The Cemetery failed to survey their client community, yet improperly stated and represented that they had, thus the decision was made on faulty information and the I true facts could not be presented. The Cemetery failed to survey their clients to see if I the majority of existing clients felt the Cemetery should allow upright markers, yet improperly represented and stated that they had. Despite the statements and representations of the Cemetery in connection with their appeal and the City Council hearing on November 15, 2005, the Cemetery previously admitted - through their director of Catholic Cemeteries Robert Lindberg - at the final Planning Commission meeting on the topic on August 23, 2005 that "we don't do that." Further, evidence was presented by current customers of the Cemetery, including Ms. Lori Ng, that no information on the Cemetery's plans to install upright markers were communicated to the customer base. Ms. Ng testified at the Planning Commission meeting of June 14,2005 that she learned of the Cemetery's application only by reading an article in the newspaper. The Planning Commission repeatedly asked that the Cemetery perform t1ùs type of survey to evaluate the impact of upright markers on the many thousands of existing clients who purchased gravesites with horizontal markers. The vested interest of existing clients such as Lori Ng, who has her son buried at the Gate of Heaven, specifically because of the beautiful surroundings provided by horizontal markers, was not considered. Two members of the Planning Commission did an informal survey on the afternoon of August 23, 2005 and found almost no support for allowing upright markers among clients visiting the Cemetery on that date. The general information presented by the appellant, stating that 40% of new clients request upright markers, does not take into account the thousands of existing clients who specifically chose Gate of Heaven for the beautiful setting provided by horizontal markers. Upon further questioning about whether the Cemetery was losing business by not providing upright markers, the response was that almost all of the new clients who initially request upright markers agree to use horizontal markers. The appellant reported that in fact the Cemetery's business is growing due to improvements in operations. Under these circumstances, it is even more important to weigh the impact of the upright markers decision on existing customers 3 Zö- \ q 1 Oak Valley Community Awareness B. "Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing." (§ 2.08.096, Paragraph 8.4.) 1. The facts to be provided by the presenters opposing upright markers could not be heard, because the Council improperly and arbitrarily denied their right to speak. The group spokesperson for the opposition group, Oak Valley Community Awareness, was not allowed the requested 10 minutes in order to present the overall position of the OVCA group, The group spokesperson was told that he would be allowed only 2 minutes to speak. Instead, the OVCA group was asked to delete speakers from the list submitted for the public hearing, even though there were other members of OVCA present who had already deferred their opportunity to speak to the listed group of speakers. As a result, 3 ofthe OVCA speakers were denied their right to voice their concerns, and the group spokesperson was limited to only 8 minutes. 2. The process was managed in a manner that was unfair to those opposing upright markers, and slanted in favor of the Appellant and their supporters. To wit, the recorded hearing demonstrates that: a. From the outset, the Mayor led the Appellant's presentation on upright markers, and through the positive question and answer process, leading the appellant's testimony, indicated his support for upright markers. b. Mayor K wok also allowed the proceedings to deteriorate to the point that there was applause after individuals spoke in the public hearing. c. He also failed to interrupt speakers who spoke on the Veterans' Memorial issue, even though participants were told at the start of the public hearing that the Veterans' Memorial issue was previously resolved and participants must confine their comments to the two issues - upright markers and landscape review. d. Mayor K wok was inconsistent in cutting off speakers at 2 minutes during the public hearing. Some opposition speakers were cut off promptly at 2 minutes, yet speakers in favor were not. e. Not all opposition speakers were allowed to speak; 3 speakers were denied the right to speak and the opposition was thus denied due process and their right to be heard. f. The Council did not consider or discuss the reasoning used in the decision by the Planning Commission, even though some ofthe same concerns voiced by the Planning Commissioners were presented during the public hearing. g. During the Council discussion of the upright markers issue, the Mayor spoke in an animated and loud manner, speaking over the orderly opposition speakers and quashing the opposing views of the dissenting Council members. h. Council Member Sandra James said she "would not even consider" a reduction of the number of upright markers, demonstrating inadequate consideration of the opposition's position. 1. The Major allowed a "rush to judgment," summarily overruling a 5-0, well- researched and well-reasoned Planning Commission decision. 4 20- lq~ Oak Valley Community Awareness 3. Over half the presentation by the appellant, and over half the discussion by the City Council, was focused on the landscape review issue. As a result, not ~nough time was allocated to discussing the upright markers issue and the documented reasons behind the Planning Commission denying the use of upright markers 5-0. 4. As a client of the Cemetery, Council Member Sandra James actively spoke against the housing development that she personally approved as a member of the City Council in 1998. She even stated that she approved the housing development in spite of the fact that her son was against losing the beautiful view from his father's gravesite. Though this may be confusing at first glance, it shows that Sandra James was biased in 1998, in favor of the Cemetery profiting from the sale of land for development, even when it meant disappointing her son. That same bias, as a client of the cemetery, appears to have affected her decision on upright markers, even if it affects the thousands of clients of the Cemetery who chose Gate of Heaven because it was dedicated as "a memorial park with horizontal markers." (1962 Use Permit.) 5. The Visual Projection System was not working for the OVCA spokesperson opposing upright markers, preventiug communication of relevaut facts on the matter to the City Council and the Community. As a consequence, the decision of the Council Members was not and could not have been based upon all the facts, and the hearing was unfair to those opposing upright markers. C. "Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: . . . Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact;" and/or "Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence." (Ord. 1807, § 1, 1999) (§ 2.08.096, Paragraphs 8.S.b. & 8.S.c.) 1. The Council did not respond to, review or discuss the rationale, reasoning or facts behind the 5-0 decision of the Planning Commission denying upright markers. The Council considered the matter anew without discussing or deliberating on key information, facts or background provided through the series of earlier meetings. a. Commissioner Miller stated in the August 23 Planning Commission meeting that, "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 place. He essentially gave up the right to vertical markers in return to build a cemetery in the fIrst place." Because this was not discussed, and speakers for the Cemetery descri.bed the actions of the Council as "taking away the Cemetery's right," the decision was based on opinion, not fact. b. Commissioner Miller also stated in the August 23 Planning Commission meeting that the Cemetery failed to disclose their intention to change the use permit when they sold the surrounding lands to the developer in 1998, Because this was not discussed by the Council, and presenters for the Cemetery were allowed to incorrectly state that the lands surrounding the Cemetery were donated, the decision was based on opinion, not fact. 5 7-0 -lC{q Oak Valley Community Awareness c. Commissioner Miller concluded his comments on August 23 by stating, "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." Because this was not discussed, and because the City Council did not have a survey of the overall client base of the existing Cemetery in justifying the need for change, the decision to allow upright markers was based on opinion, not fact. d. Commissioner Giefer stated in the August 23 Planning Commission Meeting that, "I do agree with Mr. Wong [a client of the Cemetery] 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 ofthe site." Because this was not discussed by the Council, and the other existing clients of the Cemetery were not surveyed to determine their desires, the decision was based on opinion, not fact. 2. Contrary to the Cemetery's representations and statements that the upright markers are not visible from anywhere outside the Cemetery, the proposed gravestones are visible from multiple locations, and there is a definite negative visual impact to the neighbors and Open Space users. The proposed upright markers will be visible and directly viewable from: (i) the new Hammond-Snyder Loop Trail; (ii) the historic De Anza Knoll Trail; (iii) Cristo Rey Drive; and (iv) the houses on Hammond Way. Because this was not presented by those speakers who were taken off the speaker list by the Mayor, the decision was based on opinion, not fact. D. Possible Conflict of Interest. Although it is up to the City Attorney and other members of the City Council to determine whether a conflict of interest should have been disclosed by Mayor Patrick Kwok prior to the discussion of the Cemetery's appeal, it is possible to question the lack of objectivity Mayor K wok displayed during these proceedings. Mayor K wok disclosed during the recent election that he is a member of the Finance Committee for St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Cupertino. In April 2005, St. Joseph's Finance Committee reported that it was attempting to fmd ways of overcoming a $300,000 shortfall in income. Because the St. Joseph's Finance Committee reports this to the Bishop of the Diocese of San Jose, the registered owner of the Gate of Heaven Catholic Cemetery, it places undue pressure on Mayor Kwok conceming the Gate of Heaven's appeal. We respectfully request the City Council discuss this as part of reconsideration of the Cemetery's appeal, and that Mayor Kwok consider recusing himself from future Council discussions on the Gate of Heaven. 6 zo ~ 100 Oak Valley Community Awareness On behalf of citizens of Cupertino, visitors to Rancho San Antonio Park, and clients of the Cemetery who oppose the use of upright markers at Gate of Heaven, thank you for your support. Respectfully submittR'1 CL: ¿>/~ ~eeler - OVCA Representative 22238 Hammond Way Cupertino, CA 65014 Mark Edwards - OVCA Representative 10512 Peralta Court Cupertino, CA 95014 cc: Ms. Kimberly Smith, City Clerk Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Mr. Craig Britton, General Manager, MROSD Ms. Sally Thielfoldt, Assistant General Manager Ms. Cathy Woodbury, MROSD Mr. Jonas Roddenberry, MROSD Enclosures: 1. Appendix I: Pictures of Chinese horizontal markers at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery; 2. Appendix II: November 25, 2005 Letter Supporting Petition for Reconsideration from Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 7 2Q)-m Appendix I - Pictures of Chinese Horizontal Markers at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery 7.JJ-WL u)-W3 Regional Open Space -~,....- """'- <=_____~ l:."~ MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT November 25, 2005 Cupertino City Council 10350 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Gate of Heaven - Petition for Reconsideration Permit Application U-2005-04 Honorable Council Members, Regarding the Gate of Heaven Petition for Reconsideration of the above numbered permit application, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District supports the Petition for Reconsideration. This support is based upon the merits of the proposals as we noted in our previous letters, including the District's August 16,2005 letter to the Planning Commission and the November 9, 2005 letter to the council (see attached). We appreciate the ongoing opportunity to work together in meeting the community needs. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact Cathy Woodbury, Planning Manager at (650) 691-1200. Sincerely, ~ Sally ielfoldt Acting General Manager! Assistant General Manager Cc: MROSD Board of Directors L. Craig Britton, General Manager Cathy Woodbury, Planning Manager 7O-2Of 330 Distel Circle Los Altos CA 94°22-14°4 650-691-1200 650-691-°485 fax info@openspace.org www.openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Pete Siemens, MQ/Y Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little, Nanette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Kenneth C. Nitz GENERAL MANAGER: L. Craig Britton ê=MnO ~:~~=:..""'" Regional Open S,lce . --'--"'--- ----- /"---........-- MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT November 9,2005 Cupertino çity Council 10350 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 SUBJECT: Gate of Heaven Permit Application U-2005-04 Honorable Council Members: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the appeal submitted by Gate of Heaven Cemetery to the Cupertino City Council. The District has worked extensively with Gate of Heaven and City staff during the design review process and has submitted two previous letters to the Planning Commission regarding this proposed project (dated May 25, 2005 and August 16, 2005). The District maintains its position and respectfully requests that the City Council support and uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous (5-0) decision on August 23, 2005 to deny the Cemetery's request to change their current Use Permit to allow the installation of vertical gravestones. Th~ Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) manages the 165-acre Rancho San Antonio County Park, which borders the cemetery, as well as the 3,800-acre Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserye, adjacent to the cemetery. This is the most heavily used Preserye .out of the total of26 managed by the District in Santa Clara, San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties. This area also seryes as an open space outlet to residents of the adjacent and surrounding urbanized areas. The initial permit for the Cemetery was granted by the County of Santa Clara before the annexation of this area into the City of Cupertino. The County recognized that the Cemetery is located on the urban fringe adjacent t') extensive natural areas. The District supported the County's subsequent Use Permit requirement for flush gravestones to reduce the visual impacts ofthis use. The annexation ofthis property by the City has not changed the adj acency of the Cemetery to the surrounding natural areas, and the reasons for inset gravestones are as valid now as they were then. Furthermore, the current permit proposal shows only anticipated development for the next ten (10) years. Less than half of the fifty-eight (58) acres is currently in use, but over time Gate of Heaven's long-range goal would be to develop the entire property. Some of this undeveloped land directly borders dedicated public open space and is clearly visible when entering and exiting the preserye. The District would hope that such zrr 2.05 330 Distel Circle 650-691-1200 Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax Info@openspace.org www.openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Pete Siemens, Mal}' Davey, led Cyr, Deane Little, Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Kenneth C. Nitz GENERAL MANAGER: L Craig Britton 6!!!!'!!!..... :~.~~ Cupertino City Council· November 9,2005 Page 2 a precedent would not be set that would allow for the future installation of upright gravestones and terraced walls in the undeveloped areas of the cemetery, which is not covered in the current plan. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. If you would like to discuss thîs matter further, please feel free to contact me or Cathy Woodbury, Planning Manager at (650) 691-1200. cc: MROSD Board of Directors Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City of Cupertino Mr. Robert Lindberg, Gate of Heaven Z(y ZD (¡; Reg~na'OpenSpace -~~ ...c::-'"""____ ~---- MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT EXHIBIT E August 16. 2005 Planning Commission Cily of curpertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino. CA 95014-3202 SUBJECT: Gate of Heaven Cemetery - Use Permit Appllca!ton Honorable Commissionaires, Thank you for the apportunity to comment on the permit application submitted by Gate of Heaven Cemetery to the Cily of Cupertino. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District manages the 165-acre Rancho San Antonio County Park. which borders the cemetery. as well as the 3,8OQ-acre Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. adjacent to the cemetery. This is the most heavily used Preserve out 01 the total of 26 managed by the Districf in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. This area alsa serves as an open space oullet to residenls af the adjacent and surrounding urbanized areas. Currently an gravestones are insel in the ground and cannat be seen from adjacent open space and park lands. The proposal would allow installation of upright gravesfones and terraced walls in partions of the cemetery. Though the proposed sites lor upright gravestones are nat directly visible from District land. the District opposes their installation as a change to the existing compatible open space character of the cemetery. The initial permit for the Cemetery was granted by the County 01 Santa Clara before the annexation of this area into the City of Cupertino. The Counly must have recognized that the Cemetery is located an the urban fTinge adjacent to extensive natural areas. We applaud the County's resulting requirement in the Use Permit for flush gravestones to reduce the visual impacts of this use. The mere annexation of this terñtory into the City has not changed the adjacency of the Cemetery to extensive natural areas, and the reasons for inset gravestones are just as valid now as they were then. Furthermore. the current permit proposal shows only anticipated development for the next 10 years. Less than half of the 58 acres is currently in use. but over time the long-range goal would be to develop the entire property. Some of the undeveloped land ä~ectly borders public land and is dearly visible when entering and exiting the preserve. We would not like a precedent set that "paves" the way for the installation of upright gravestones and terraced walls in the undeveloped areas of the cemetery not covered in the current plan. We commend Gate of Heaven for finding a suitable site for the proposed crucifix that is not visible from surrounding open space land. We also thank them for addressing aur concerns over 330 Plstel Circle. Los AlIos. CA 94022-1404 . Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 . E-maft: InIoOopenspace.org . Web sRe: www.openspace,org 4~4q U)- 2.01. Cupertino Planning Commission Page 2 August 16. 2005 the existing corporation yard by planting screening trees between the yard and District land. In the future the District suggests planting Oab rather than Redwoods as they are more effective os 0 screen and better suited to the local environment. Than\:: you for the opportunity to review and comment on the plans. If you would Ii\::e to discuss this matter further. please feel free to contact planning manager Cathy Woodbury at (650) 691- 1200. Sincerely, L. Craig Britton, General Manager Cc: MOSRD Boord of Directors Robert Undberg. Gate of Heaven Thomas P. O'Donnell, Esq, +-f£> ------~---~~_._-,~_.._--~~------ --'-~ -------------" ------~_._.----~ --~--_..- ------..--- -.---"--,_._~-~.._--_._---------~----- 70- u/?, November 15,2005 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Mayor K wok reordered the agenda to take up item number 15 next. .' EXHIBIT E NEW BUSINESS 15. Approve an assignment of the lease with the Coffee Society at the Cupertino Library LLC for the operation of the Coffee Society coffee shop in the Cupertino Library to Jackie and Bill Streeter, Dan St. Peter, and Ralph Flynn with no change in the terms of the existing lease and at no cost to the City, and authorize the City Manager to execute the lease agreement. Director of Public Works Ralph Qualls reviewed the staff report. Ralph Flynn, former owner, said that the buyers have experience and he thinks they will do a good job. He noted that all the Coffee Societies would remain the same, with the current logo. Jackie Streeter and her two sons said that they had been looking for a business and the Coffee Society was an ideal situation. They plan to add activities such as author presentations, music, etc. into the coffee shop. Bill Streeter said that he would be the manager of the store and discussed his plans for improvements, including increased seryice, later hours, open for evening gatherings, adding umbrellas, and adding signage and seating. Dan Streeter said that he grew up in Cupertino and the family is excited about making the shop more of a community center. James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to approve the assignment of the lease. Vote: i\yes: All. Noes: None. i\bsent:None. Mayor Kwok reordered the agenda to take up public hearings next. PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. 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. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki began reviewing the staff report. City Planner Cynthia Wordell continued reviewing the staff report with a PowerPoint presentation and video showing each area of the cemetery and the proposals for change: 1) Veterans section; 2) Upright marker area; 3) New niche feature; 4) Upright marker area; 5) Pieta statue; 6) Crucifix; 7) View from existing upright markers; and 8) The 7..ö-7..0'1 November 15,2005 Cupertino City Council Page 6 adjacent open space view. She noted that areas 1 and 2, highlighted in the video, are the basis for the appeal. John Ottoboni, attorney for Gate of Heaven Cemetery, addressed the detailed landscape plan in the Veterans section. He noted that condition 4 requires that they not implement anything relevant to the niche and trellis feature in the Veteran's section without first going back to the Planning Commission. He said that the Gate of Heaven's arborist went to staff to have 3 dying trees removed from the Veterans section, but discovered they couldn't be removed without approval of a detailed landscape plan, which must first go to the Planning Commission. He also said that condition 8 prohibits the implementation of the use permit until the conditions are recorded, and that this might violate federal or other laws, including the Religion Land Use and Institutionalized Person's Act of 2000. He said he believes it is burdensome, as defined by the principles of the act, because there is unnecessary delay and uncertainty, and it subjects them to numerous hearings or appeals. He said that they worked with the neighbors to arrive at a compromise, everything will meet ADA concerns, and there would be only 14% upright markers in their cemetery. He said they believe their proposal is fair, and the imposition and implementation of another round of public hearings before the Planning Commission is unfair, burdensome, and discriminatory. Applicant Robert Lindberg and John Ottoboni answered questions from Council. Their responses included: Gate of Heaven would only have 14% upright markers compared to at least 50% at other cemeteries in Northern California; the markers would be half the size of the veteran's markers that are 6 feet; upright markers are important to the culture in how people honor their loved ones; more than 40% of people of faith want to use upright markers to bury their loved ones, but are willing to compromise because they want to be buried at the Gate of Heaven cemetery, since it's the closest Catholic cemetery in the area. At 8: 17 p.m. the public hearing was opened. Monsignor Michael Mitchell said he is a veteran and both his parents are buried at Gate of Heaven. He said the Planning Commission could have been more sensitive to the needs of the community. He said that residents should be able bury their loved ones the way they want to with upright markers. He urged Council to uphold the appeal. Sylvia Phillips said she has many family members buried at Gate of Heaven. She said that the Asian culture requires upright markers, and the Planning Commission failed to consider that with the demographics of Cupertino. She urged Council to set aside the requirement that the Planning Commission has final say over any designs because it is a private cemetery. She urged Council to uphold the appeal. Jack Birkholz talked about the position of the Regional Open Space District, especially Rancho San Antonio, and said that the impact on those enjoying Rancho San Antonio is minimal with upright markers at the cemetery. He urged Council to uphold the appeal. rzø-Ub November 15,2005 Cupertino City Council Page 7 Jonas Roddenberry, representing the Regional Open Space District, said that open space preseryes are vital for residents, and allowing upright headstones will change the nature of the area. He Urged Council to deny the appeal. Lori Ng said she has a son buried at Gate of Heaven, and is thankful for the environment for her 3-year old. She said she likes that no vertical markers are allowed, and were told there would be none when she bought her house. She urged Council to deny the appeal. Jim Wheeler, representing the Oak Valley Awareness Group, said he lives next to Gate of Heaven, and that it is one of the nicest cemeteries in Northern California, maintained as beautifully as a park. He talked about the dangers of sloped terraces with the vertical markers, and that there would be major issues with safety, handicap access, and drainage. He commented that there are other cemeteries with vertical markers that are available to those who want them, and urged Council to uphold the appeal. Tilman Sporket from Oak Valley Community Awareness showed a slideshow of views from neighboring walking trails, and noted that the cemetery is visible from the trails. He said that using gravestones with retaining walls is like building a brand new cemetery next to the old one. He urged Council to uphold the appeal. Ron Yu continued with the previous slideshow and said that the Planning Commission did their job to protect the residents. He said that his family bought their home with the knowledge that the use permit requiring horizontal markers would remain in effect. He urged Council to uphold the appeal. Avner Schwartz continued with the slideshow showing an example of a cemetery with upright markers. He said that when he bought his house he was told the character of the memorial park wouldn't change. He urged Council to uphold the appeal. Michelle Hocker said that the cemetery averages about 500 people buried there a year, for an approximately total of 64,500 people since 1962, and they didn't have a chance to say what they wanted. She asked to have the landscaping reviewed because oleanders were taken out without permission. She urged Council to uphold the appeal. Kim James quoted the Planning Commissioners from the meeting in which they denied the request for vertical markers. She urged Council to uphold the appeal. Johnson Lau said that, regarding the comment about the Asian community desiring upright markers, 3 of his 4 grandparents had wanted to be buried in a place like Gate of Heaven without the upright markers. He urged Council to uphold the appeal. Leigh Stevens said that she only wants horizontal markers because vertical markers would be visible when using the trail. She said that landscape review is necessary and not anymore unfair than other neighbors who are trying to change something. She urged Council to uphold the appeal. W-Ul November 15,2005 Cupertino City Council Page 8 Mark Madsen said he was speaking on behalf of his father, who died 10 years ago, said that perspective has been lost in thinking that the Gate of Heaven cemetery is a park. Ray Gamma, a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, said that in 1962 there were no homes anywhere nearby. He said that in his understanding, the use permit for the flat markers was a necessity because of the design of the graves, and not mandatory for any other reason. He urged Council to uphold the appeal. Marie DiCiceo said that there weren't any homes nearby when the cemetery was fIrst built, and that people who bought their homes in the area knew that a cemetery was there. She said that the cemetery honors veterans and Catholics in their faith, and wants the markers to be visible. She urged Council to uphold the appeal. Ed Ford said that the Planning Commission shouldn't be telling a private cemetery what to have there, and especially what kind of trees. He urged Council to uphold the appeal. Ramon Lune said that his family knew there was a cemetery when they bought the property. He urged Council to let the cemetery run its business in peace, and to uphold the appeal. Tom Bomheimer said that he and his brother chose the Gate of Heaven cemetery because of the atmosphere of having flat stones. He said that the cemetery has already violated their use permit by putting up vertical headstones. He urged Council to deny the appeal. Bill Egan said that he has family buried at the Gate of Heaven cemetery, and that the cemetery should be allowed to run its business. He said he doesn't want vertical markers, but also doesn't want to stop others from having them. He urged Council to uphold the appeal. Fr. Gregory Kimm said that he is Chinese American, and said that respect for elders is very important, including the size and position of headstones. He said that flat headstones are insufficient and others may criticize those who choose them for not honoring the elderly properly. He urged Council to uphold the appeal. Joseph Milani said that he will have a flat marker, but no one should stop others from having vertical markers if they want them. He said that people have the right to show their faith in a Catholic Cemetery and urged Council to uphold the appeal. Deborah Hill said that people shouldn't have to go elsewhere to bury their family if they want a certain marker. She urged Council to uphold the appeal. Fred Fry said that everyone must abide by the rules, including the Catholic cemetery. He urged Council to deny the appeal. 1..D - 7.X2_ November 15,2005 Cupertino City Council Page 9 Cathy Padilla said that most of her family is buried in Gate of Heaven. She said that people knew it was a cemetery when they bought their home, and urged Council to uphöld the appeal. At 9: 17 p.m. the public hearing was closed. Council gave their comments. Sandra James said that her husband is buried in the Veteran's section of the Gate of Heaven cemetery in a plot of land that her son picked out, overlooking the valley. She said that the very first thing she was asked to do when elected to Council was to decide whether houses could be built in that area or not. She said she looked at where the houses were going to be built, and saw that they would block the view of the valley, but voted in favor of building the homes anyway because she felt that the landowner had the right to build, and she didn't have the right to say no just because of her personal feelings. She noted that people could still have a choice of either flat headstones or vertical markers, and there is nothing wrong with allowing both types of markers. She said she doesn't think that the changes the cemetery is asking will be detrimental to anyone. Regarding the landscape plan, she said she believes that staff can make the decision without having to go back through the Planning Commission public hearing process. She said she would vote to uphold the appeal and allow vertical markers. Richard Lowenthal said that the Gate of Heaven cemetery is unique. Regarding the landscape plan, he trusted that staff could make the [mal decision rather than go back through the Planning Commission. Regarding the upright markers, he said that when someone wants a change, it is their responsibility to justify why they want a change. He said he was leaning toward upholding the appeal because when the cemetery was built, it wasn't a requirement of the developers to create an environment for the general public. They decided that one their own, and we shouldn't now hold that decision against them. Dolly Sandoval thanked the neighbors and the cemetery for working together to come to consensus on some of the other issues. She said she agreed that having the Planning Commission review any kind of landscaping plan from here on out is both onerous and burdensome, and she trusted staff to do a good job. She said she was disappointed with the cemetery management in cutting down the oleanders and taking the screening away from the residents who live on Canyon Oak. In addition, she said she was also disappointed that they implemented the upright markers on their own against their current use permit. She noted that in the future, they must follow whatever use permit is in place, and that they must have their landscaping plan approved by City staff. She said that we are a changing society, and she hasn't been shown the need to change from flat horizontal markers to vertical markers. She noted that there are opportunities for people to be buried around this area if their first priority is a vertical marker. 1{)- 2-\3 November 15,2005 Cupertino City Council Page 10 Patrick Kwok said that the diocese has made a lot of concessions in order to come to closure, including adding almost 58 trees in the area that will add screening and landscape to the cemetery. He noted that the cemetery has been there for 47 years, and it is the choice of the people to have moved into the area, and the choice of the people to be buried at Gate of Heaven. He said that statistics demonstrate that out of 28 Catholic cemeteries in this area, almost all have vertical markers. He said that the cemetery wasn't asking too much for 14.4% of upright markers compared to the bay area average of 54%. He said that people should have the opportunity to choose what kind of marker they want, and that it sends the wrong message to people in Cupertino and the Bay Area to say that if they want an upright marker, they can't be buried in Cupertino. People must adapt to changes. As far as the landscape plan, he said that the role of government is not to micromanage the type of trees, etc. and he is comfortable with staff deciding on the landscaping plan. He said he supports the original staff recommendation of upright markers and to decide on the landscaping plan at staff level. Kris Wang said that the Gate of Heaven is one of the best cemeteries she has seen, and she had even helped her in-laws find a plot there. She noted that she was surprised that upright markers were not allowed, and as a Chinese-American, she was used to the upright markers. She said that her in-laws decided to be buried there anyway because it was so beautiful. She said that some of the speakers wondered why the Council has a say- so over private property. She said she believes the property owner has the right to decide how to build, but that the City has policies to protect the neighborhood, and relies on Council to make decisions to protect both their privacy and the property owner rights. She said it seems selfish to take away the desire for people who want to be buried there with upright markers. James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to accept the appeal and specified that the applicants do not need to go back to the Planning Commission to get approval for the landscaping plans; staff has the authority to approve or deny those. The motion carried unanimously. James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to accept the appeal for the vertical headstones as presented this evening. Wang moved to amend the motion to approve section two only. Sandoval seconded the amendment for purposes of discussion. The amendment failed with Lowenthal and Wang voting aye. Council voted on the main motion to accept the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to not allow vertical headstones. The motion carried with Sandoval and Wang voting no, so vertical headstones will be allowed. Council was in recess from 10:03 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. w-v4 CLARENCE J. FERRARI, JR JOHN M. Û1TOBONI LISA INTRIERI CAPUTO JOSEPH W. MELL,JR. KEVIN J. KELLY JOHN M. W\JNDERUNG KARL-HEINZ LACHNtT JULlEO.VEIT FERRARI 01TOBONI .... LLP Attorneys at LfIW 333 W. SANTA CLARA ST. SUITE 700 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95Jl3-1716 Telepllone (408) 280-0535 Fax (408)280-0151 OFCOUNS£L THOMAS P. O'DONNELL January 9, 2006 Melilo Park Office Telephone (650) 327-3233 Fax (650) 462-0998 WWW.FERRARl-OrrOBON1.COM VIA HAND DELIVERY Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Cupertino Attention: City Clerk City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 EXHIBIT F Re: Application No. U-2005-04 Applicant: Robert Lindberg (Gate of Heaven Cemetery operated by the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose) Address: 2555 Cristo Rey Drive Response to Petitions for Reconsideration of City Council's Decision of November 15, 2005 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: This firm represents the above-referenced applicant. The Petition of Reconsideration of Keith Hocker ("Hocker") and the Petition for Reconsideration of Jim Wheeler and Mark Edwards (Oak Valley Community Awareness) ("OVCA") do not justifY reconsideration of the decision of the prior Council granting Gate of Heaven Cemetery's ("Cemetery") Appeal in the above-referenced matter. (See Cupertino Municipal Code Title 2, Section 2.08.0968). The petitions fail to offer new relevant evidence which in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been produced at any earlier City hearing. The petitions fail to provide proof of facts demonstrating (1) that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing, (2) that the City Council abused its discretion and/or (3) that a conflict of interest existed. The City Council thoroughly reviewed the Appeal of the Cemetery and lawfully reached its decision granting the Appeal. In reaching its decision, the City Council recognized the significant compromises made by the Cemetery, including the significant reduction in the number of upright markers. 1 The City Council perceived the cultural significance of providing upright markers for utilization in the Cemetery. The City Council realized the inappropriateness The requested number of upright markers was reduced from approximately 4300 to 1800. Approximately 57% (existing and proposed) of the markers in Northern California Catholic Cemeteries are upright markers. The proposed upright markers at Gate of Heaven Cemetery would constitute less than 15% of the total in-ground burials when added to its presently existing in-ground burials. 7..D -l.l5 of the Planning Commission's condition that the Planning Commission approve a detailed landscape plan prior to full implementation of the Use Permit. The City Council granted the Appeal consistent with the evidence and with the recommendation of approval of CupertÜ;1O Community Development Staff ("Staff'). I The Hocker Petition seeks reconsideration on the basis that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing because Patrick K wok allegedly had a conflict of interest and that Sandra James was allegedly biased (page 1). The OVCA Petition joins in these allegations (page 6 as to Mr. Kwok; page 4 as to Ms. James). These arguments are meritless and without justification. Hocker admits that Mr. Kwok's voluntary membership on the Finance Council for St. Joseph of Cupertino Parish was well known. OVCA admits that Mr. Kwok disclosed during the recent election (prior to the Appeal hearing) that he was a member of the Finance Council at St. Joseph of Cupertino Parish. This is no evidence - nor can there be - that Mr. Kwok had a financial interest (or other interest constituting a conflict) in the Cemetery. Despite the knowledge of Hocker and OVCA (and the electorate), no one opposing the Appeal requested Mr. Kwok recuse himself from the Appeal hearing nor did anyone request that the City Councilor the City Attorney address the issue until after the Appeal was granted. Simply stated, there is no conflict. Hocker and OVCA argue without merit or justification that Ms. James was biased. Ms. James' remarks are misconstrued by Hocker and OVCA in a shameful and futile attempt to impugn her reputation. Those who heard her poignant, honest comments can only conclude that she is a person of exceptional integrity and courage and is not biased. No more need be said. OVCA also argues that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing because "over half of the discussion by the City Counsel was focused on the landscape review issue." This argument is disingenuous. OVCA opposed the Cemetery's Appeal and specifically addressed and supported the Planning Commission's requirement that it hold reviews of the Cemetery's landscape plans. (See letter of Jim Wheeler and Mark Edwards of November 7, 2005 to the Cupertino City Council, page 2.) One can hardly oppose an issue on appeal and then complain about the time spent on the issue. OVCA also argues that the City Council abused its discretion claiming that speakers were allegedly not allowed to address the issue of visibility of the proposed upright markers (paragraph C2). This argument is also without merit and fails to acknowledge that OVCA's position on this issue was submitted in writing to the City Council on November 7, 2005 (see letter of Jim Wheeler and Mark Edwards of November 7,2005 to the Cupertino City Council, page 2). The balance ofOVCA's arguments claiming abuse of discretion or failure to provide a fair hearing are similarly without merit. The record itself demonstrates that the hearing was fair and that no abuse of discretion occurred. Neither of the two City Council Members who opposed the Cemetery's Appeal suggested that the hearing was unfair, that additional evidence be taken, or that the other members of the City Council were abusing their discretion. Nor was any such suggestion made by any members of City Staff present at the hearing. 2 ZO-2tLP Finally, OVCA claims to offer new evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier City hearing. It suggests that the amount of inscription possible on horizontal markers was incorrectly stated by Ms. James when she described her thoughts in connection with her remarks referenced above. What OVCA ignores is that the relevant sizes of the horizontal and proposed upright markers have been well known throughout the hearing process. Similarly, the amount of inscription available on such markers is easily obtained through visual observation? Realizing the futility of characterizing Ms. James' comments as "comparative evidence", OVCA further claims that Father Gregory Kimm, a Chinese American, misled the City Council. This claim is also without merit. The cultural significance ofthe availability of upright markers has been an issue discussed throughout these proceedings. Father Kimm clearly reiterated and explained the importance of this issue. OVCA offers no evidence negating the significance of upright markers to certain members of cultural communities. Realizing that it has no new evidence relative to the markers or to the issue of cultural significance, OVCA lastly claims that the Cemetery had some purported duty to survey their "client community." This is not new evidence and was an issue discussed during the proceedings. For all of the above reasons, Gate of Heaven Cemetery requests that the City Council deny the Petitions for Reconsideration. Very truly yours, c:;fhM ~- ~ ~.' Ottoboni cc: Mr. Robert Lindberg Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner 2 The amOlUlt of usable inscription space on a single grave (up to two burials) upright marker is 972 square inches. The amount of usable inscription space on a single grave horizontal marker is 288 square inches. The amount of usable inscription space on a double grave (up to four burials) horizontal marker is 594 square inches. Appendix 1 ofOVCA's petition depicts double grave (up to four burials) horizontal markers only. 3 20-- Z\l EXHIBIT G Declaration of Patrick Kwok Re: Petition for Rehearing U-2005-04 (Use Permit - Gates of Heaven) I, Patrick Kwok, declare as follows: 1. At all relevant times, I have been a city council member for the City of Cupertino. 2. On November 15, 2005, the Cupertino City Council considered the appeal of the Diocese of San Jose regarding its application for a conditional use permit (U-2005-04) which, among other things, sought to use upright grave markers at the Gates of Heaven Cemetery which had previously utilized only flat markers. The appeal reviewed the Cupertino Planning Commission's denial of the application. The City Council, at the conclusion of the hearing, reversed the Planning Commission's decision and approved the conditional use permit by a 3- 2 vote. 3. I was the mayor and presiding officer at the hearing. 4. Two petitions for reconsideration have been filed by residents Jim Wheeler, Mark Edwards and Keith Hocker. 5. This declaration is intended to address some of the allegations contained in these petitions. 6. One allegation is that members of the Oak Valley Community Awareness (OVCA) were not allowed to speak and that Jim Wheeler, a member of the group was allowed to speak for only eight minutes. 7. Prior to commencement of the hearing, I was informed by the city staff that there were approximately 30 written requests to speak from members of 1 7JJ. 2.1 <6 the public on all sides of the issue. Accordingly, I determined that each speaker would be allowed two minutes to speak. The applicant's representatives and any authorized representative of the opposition group would be allowed 10 minutes to speak. 8. Staff also informed me that a resident named Jim Wheeler wished to speak for eight minutes. Mr. Wheeler was not identified to me by either staff or by himself as an authorized representative of any opposition group and therefore he was entitled to speak for only two minutes.. 9. I therefore suggested to Mr. Wheeler that if he wished to speak for eight minutes, I would allow that this presentation if he were able to obtain permission from three other persons who had requested their right to speak to utilize their time. This was made only as a suggestion to Mr. Wheeler. At no time did he inform me that he was the authorized representative of OVCA or any other opposition group, and at no time did he request ten minutes to speak. 10. At the hearing, Mr. Wheeler spoke for eight minutes and informed me that three other residents voluntarily agreed to give Mr. Wheeler the extra time. 11. Both Petitions for Reconsideration also allege that I have a "conflict interest" and that I "lacked objectivity" regarding this hearing. 12. Regarding the conflict of interest allegation, I have no financial interest in the Gates of Heaven Cemetery or its owner the Diocese of San Jose and own no burial plot at the site. I am a devout Roman Catholic and am a member of the local St. Joseph of Cupertino Parish. I also sit on the financial 2 20 - 2t q committee ofthe local parish. The parish has no financial connection with the operation of the Gates of Heaven Cemetery. The only, financial connection I between the parish and Diocese is that the parish, like all parishes in the Diocese, provides revenue to the Diocese as mandated by the Diocese. My role as one of the finance committee members of the local parish is to advise the local pastor regarding the local operating budget. 13. Prior to the hearing in this case, I sought the advice of the City Attorney who informed me that I had no legal conflict of interest. 14. Like other hearings before the City Council, I approached the Gates of Heaven appeal with an open mind. I had no preconceived position for or against the proposal. 15. Prior to the hearing, I received communications from both the Diocese constituents and the neighbors who opposed the project. Nothing either side told me influenced my decisions at the hearing. I relied solely on the evidence presented at the hearing and voted to uphold the appeal. I declare the foregoing under penalty of 3 w-rlO ,. ,j '&".., '.... , .", :.... .... '.' ,'. '", '", . "':.. ~1 !!! ~ < < < < < < < þ Upright marker terrace wall 6-8 rows in each a rea F'L.Ai5STØtE vet ... 0/ c;oHc;. FtETAlNlNe ~ SI..OPINe .~ 1500-1800 !J2' .H1í5H ÆTAI1íIIN$ ~~:= HI1M markers 3 acres , Will include landscaping SEGTlON .1'\ I A. __ - /77\ -....- ~ seT· GIN·1"f()H !lAND Rendering of the proposed UPRIGHT MARKER section ~( € $( l~1 Markers ~I -,.. \"~ Veterans' ¡ 1. A i , - ~ 39' -,..-~. ~ ..---..-- ~', =-::ì\ "~TI'I";, = R I!,-J ~~ (~~~"""""".... ~";'BO""""""" ~ST1H6b;IISfc.AA!fr4Lßt:;.FfM::e 5GRIÐi"I<æ> ."!.AH'ÆI:)I'f'I1HeiGLJtoelN&~ PmI.I5~ Hrtlot\lGalreR r¡.a;6RANITE~(6) I --.. --.. !/ ... 6. Bishop's Circle and Crucifix BISHOP NAME - """""'".. . CIIÐIASIA_ WATUIK1 -~ .,,,,,"" ô ~.- QrniI5IÒICR1D:uI: OCI'CIIRJI.'. --- KJ\IbI&I,IIIII8 'QUOTE" 'QUOTE" 4 ~ -- - ~~ - W \ I I I \ \ ~ 'a""""" ~". :' . " :,:' ..' . ,,::~' ~ PARK ~IV - I',,"~ ~--------- ,J;;:j ® SANTA NINO NICHE F!:A TURE ~1"1QC.7 -.. ~-~. !E.\NIGHE F!:AnJRE WITH TRELLIS 'C:./ ~ ~I'-O' '-,'" 5 VETERAN'5 ME~IAL Pl-ANTIN6 PLAN '.:/ ~....w ~"","J ~'/ " <t:-:7>:';4:, ~:/"':ý:; " >B15HOP'S PLAZA @D,PIETASTATIJESITE AND STA1'1..IE OF ST.....JO+1N ~I~ SCREENIN6 PL.AN -..,~ """" r---- JW.IJ"N'oIbH'IV ...- sec;11ON ~~ØI oC;C:INC...."...I>WJ.{ ~~.., ,..._erOtl_..... WALL @" " SCREENIN6 FOR EXIST. lØI:;Ii&.UTC. A-.Jn "'.PI v-.l;:1 ~ CORPORATION YARD SCREENING PLAN ......,-