U-2005-04bJune 5, 2006
Mr. Bruce Hill
Hill Associates
479 North Santa Cruz Avenue
Los Gatos, California 95030
Dear Mr. Hill:
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Telephone: (408) 777-3308
FAX: (408) 777-3333
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning staff has approved the landscaping plans for the Gate of Heaven Cemetery. The
approved plan set is enclosed. The lands, -aping will need to be installed as part of the
new features, e.g., niches, upright markers, statues.
Yours truly,
Ciddy WordeYi
City Planner
C: Robert Lindberg, Gate of Heaven Cemetery
Printed c ,n Recycled Paper
GATE OF HEAVEN CEMETERY
DIOCESE OF SAN JOSE
22555 CRISTO REY DRNE
4. LOS ALTOS, CA 94024
(650) 428-3730
KEY MAI'
DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLANS
DRAWING INDEX
CO -1 COVER SHEET
TS -1 TREE SURVEY PLAN
L-1 PLANTING PLAN
L-2 PLANTING PLAN
L-5 PLANTING PLAN
L-4 PLANTING PLAN
L-5 PLANTIN6 PLAN
L-6 PLANTING PLAN
L-1 PLANTING PLAN
L-8 PLANTING PLAN
L-41 PLANTING PLAN
L-10 PLANTING PLAN
L—II PLANTIN6 NOTES AND PLANTIN6 1—E6END
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT LOCATION
6ATE OF HEAVEN CEl- T Y
22555 CRISTO REY DRIVE
LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA 414024
PARCEL NUMBI=R 542-05-541
PARCEL SIZE 58.4 ACRES
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION CEIr1E rEtZ f
EXISTING ZONING BO (GiUASI—PUBLIC)
VICINITY MAP
r� t
t ,
AV
APPROVAL
Application Number
Date
Signature
Case Manager
..tnsn+i:.�.+r wi.:. w.�:.T I�es..�:•�..'k :J. .)�'.:'l'.. 4' V.1 :7 4 .. .v.•♦.. .�..... �.. s,. .v...............r.. _.. ._....
Li]
2M3 y
r rr
Aja,. /Wt 31. ��P�
F—
W
W
T
C)
W
W
O
U
x ab
N
w 6
v
w
w
U
z
w
w
x�
w �Q
w oF�
^ n
ev
0. QiN N
Date 05/09/06
Scale: AS SHOWN
Drawn: RBH
Job: 05.1141
O Sheets
J
REVISIONS
L,_L "I
0—
CONTAINERJ
--____---tUANTITY WE
—PLokNT
ABBRE/l ION,
-PLANTING KEY
b -
�7
CoK <
PAID
LT \ \
-APPROVAL V
Applic on Number
'Date
iu re
Cass Maq
_ager
TL -1 -74
'jFMAT 'NNE7 -REF SHEET
z
z
a
14
I I Date 05/09/06 1
Scale: V--20'
Drawn: RBH
Job: 05.1141
Sheet
L-1
Of Sheets
------------------__��
7,
MATCHLINE REF SHEET L
_APPROVAL
s
------- l plication Number
Date _ y
9nature _ PLANT
----------------Csse-Manager ABBREVIAT
ry.yys �'. i'ttii; .,..•,s,: �,...r.... :°..,..S.t •icy....... y, u, .N;, r = — -... ,. - � = �:_ �.—.. ., .:
L11
Z
V
z
IIIz
J
w 26
W s
w v
W
V
z
w
rxT• o�
N
�O
W O06
CO;
g4
Ufa
� UNC
O N
O
Date 05/09/06
Scale: 11=20'
Drawn: RBH
Job: 05.1141
Sheet
L-2
Of Sheets
\
MATCHLINE - REF SHEET L-6
4Joi
Signature cS
CaS6.,
�r
z
0.
V
z
z
n�
ii
W
rT�
W
U
W
W
W O�0.�
U��
Otn
ta
d A N O
Date 05/09/06
Scale: 1' =20'
Drawn: RBH
Job: 05.1141
' Sheet
L_3
Of Sheets
�U)
w
z
CONTAINER
—1QUANTITY � , .- -SIZE
Q
z
0.
V
z
z
n�
ii
W
rT�
W
U
W
W
W O�0.�
U��
Otn
ta
d A N O
Date 05/09/06
Scale: 1' =20'
Drawn: RBH
Job: 05.1141
' Sheet
L_3
Of Sheets
t-
80
VAL,
EMMWAD
---- -- -A plicabon Number
----------------------
ate
-Signcitu
\ \ \ \\�
.C -
re
aniVf�r
---- a--------
i
L
If
L0
lb
WW
� 1 � 1 11 \ � \ I � 1 !, ( � '1
U)
L
W
LT
W
z
777i
C.)
M
A
%
CONTAINER
WITY
It) SIZE
TINO G
RF�,V ION.-,
AUSOLE
�— / i l ��° '� iS
I PLANTING KEY�:I�
�ATZHLI'NE - REF SHEET L-7
REVISIONS
Coll
W
�E
U
z
C) >4
o O
4n
Ln
P.
Date 05109106
Scale: 1"--20'
Drawn: RBH
Job: 05.1141
Sheet
L-4
Of Sheets
12 5
ET i
r /
LA<E
AM
1 \
V
Ib-
-000
12 I
105
J / 95 \-
i r, C �. b 1 II 1 9G PI8
W E C66, \
LL PAD
W/ v V 1 5 :.
mw .:.'/ b
MBA / LN
W I / 51.1 ' 12 1 9 I
Z b 1 Nra. AR
/
J
r HS
PA
Q sI
14 1 Z 1 NP rm )
m5v
P -VST. LANDWAPIN6 TO R 14W TYP.
PS i 1
cze
c
LA<E
\ / /
i
\A',
�. ��.\` \ //' //� /� / ,' /moi /� /�---•'
' '
---------------------
L � MATCHLINE - REF SHEET L-8
Application
G� Date PN
Signafur
r1
j Case Manager
jM t,. ,w• �t�,+•xn?nsw' wt' .r.�, .;,�r�,r..'a�;,t....._P�� .. _,.H, ..,..... ,..
O /
r /
PP ,
PP
O
\ P
J
S�
,O
000
J
r HS
PA
Q sI
14 1 Z 1 NP rm )
m5v
P -VST. LANDWAPIN6 TO R 14W TYP.
PS i 1
cze
c
LA<E
\ / /
i
\A',
�. ��.\` \ //' //� /� / ,' /moi /� /�---•'
' '
---------------------
L � MATCHLINE - REF SHEET L-8
Application
G� Date PN
Signafur
r1
j Case Manager
jM t,. ,w• �t�,+•xn?nsw' wt' .r.�, .;,�r�,r..'a�;,t....._P�� .. _,.H, ..,..... ,..
O /
r /
PP ,
PP
O
\ P
J
S�
W
W
' O
U)
LL
W
v
Qc
qhL 2w
Jj• • pIR 3�• �P
9�Or CA1C
V
z
Z
o
Date 05/09/06 1
Scale: 1"=20'
Drawn: RBH
Job: 05.1141
Sheet
L-5
Of Sheets
MATCHLINE - REF SHEET L-3 REVISIONS
4
plicafiorNumbe
r
D
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
/Zignature
Case'h�anag &�r
cb
tol
I JAR 3�'
Z OF
W
W
LL,W
Z
C)
i h� �\ �\______---_____
X\
U
ARk
VED Z
mum
0
C) Oe
0
0
dONTADIF-R
QUANTITY SIZE -
Date 05109106
PLANT Scale: 1'%=20'
ABBREVIATION
Drawn: RBH
PLANTJob: 05.1141
Sheet
L-6
MATCHLINE - REF SHEET L-9
Of Sheeft
\ \ i
LT'
FIsf
\
1\
Ms 2MM3
CO Or-
�' • p
cLOry / \ ' p � \ \ \ ' \ � \ \�• \\ \\
— —
-------------
_...�.__.. ��.—�.—.— _--��--_�...�.�_l-r--l.—.—._.�.—.—.—.�—.�_—�—.__.__._--..�—�.�..—__�--�_�a.Svc__�--..�_.�—.._.—.��—�.—�—.._--.--.—�.__.—_�.�_�_.—_�. �`\
�A
------------ �---- I-
__ -- ----__ _ ___ ------
1
\ I
Date 05109/06
Scale: 1'=20'
Drawn: RBH
Job: 05.1141
Sheet
L-7
Of Sheets
4 45050NORTH
__-----_ '
~------------- \
�^
�m �~
\ ' APPROVAL'
` \
Application ."oo/we, .
/
| . .
/ »
i�
.
Signature
/ /~---
Case Manager
;
/
CONTAINER
QUANTITY4 SIZE
PLANT
ABBREVIATION
rPaNTING KEY
REVISIONS
Sheet
L-9
lit
I IN
__-----_ '
~------------- \
�^
�m �~
\ ' APPROVAL'
` \
Application ."oo/we, .
/
| . .
/ »
i�
.
Signature
/ /~---
Case Manager
;
/
CONTAINER
QUANTITY4 SIZE
PLANT
ABBREVIATION
rPaNTING KEY
REVISIONS
Sheet
L-9
i
m
�U-�//YY\\"V-\ice^/ti'--\ll/y"'
/
APPROVAL,�,,� --
Application Number \
V - / \
l , - Gate \\
\ — '
S -iture ��A&aJ2
Igne
Case Manager
i
1
j F j
�EX I ST i NG ,I
I
CORPORATION YARD
APR 3k. Q
Z
Q
J
CL
V
Z
Z
CL
I
0
N
in
W�
O A N
LLM1�W<;�
0�vi
vvW�v)0
UUC
2.-,8
A N
Date 05/09/06
Scale: I WO'
Drawn: RBH
Job: 05.1141
Sheet
L-10
Of Sheets
PLANT LEGEND
REVISIONS
film
�
GENERAL PLANTING NOTES
.M
«
A.W, 1441'" VA
COON" 1441'"
NCx
+eoAleADOOWooD
ASH• 0M
_'
`•w X"
OO1°L`
I . THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL
s4•Box
s•IoxrT
STAMM
DOAauSTAIQ
VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE SITE
`O
�P1190�J°
SH a'1 °L1rO"°" "®
"' BO"
"' X `'
°C'L` •T"'O
PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY WORK.
LN LAW" HWLM GItOWlLAARAL 34, Max 11-Wx31-41 DOUMSTAM
REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE
LGO
LOOOPH1117O NCONuRnr
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY.
BRreABam er'BOX Amn'XS.r' POJfttSTAMM
M60
MAGNOLIA INA' aIANA
ALouIDRRu'
GALCVAK A MAmiOLIA
GAR 'ALDNAID LIA
er• eox
.-lo X `_'
caeLe °T.1a
2. ALL PLANTED AREAS, EXCEPT THOSE
Pe
PRRea CAlnLwdm
CARaRu CNmY
u• BOX
San' X S•r'
OQUOLe STAMM
AREAS PLANTED IN LAWN, SHALL RECEIVE A
PK
•AoAW'
'AMANos
24- NOW
6-1°xs-4'
DolAnurTANa
2" LAYER FIR OR REDWOOD BARK MULCH
POW
Pwe4r TA
zs• Box
n•u'.S r'
DOM STAMM
LAYER, APPLIED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF
C <
,�P.aDOreL.PRK
POU61.
VAR VMMs W VOU
�AR>DCvoLePReK
PLANTING OPERATIONS. THIS BARK MULCH
D
!w+oa SE"r,aRVlna+e
APrw eLe'
Corr la * DU
CAR 'Acro° OD .
4S• BOX
r GAL
_
r r x • s
aT' x �•r
Do1ELe STAXe
" u
SHALL BE GROUND, SCREENED, 1 /4 TO 1 /2
`'�'
SIZE AND NITROGEN TREATED WITH A WETTING
g
AGA
'A q' o�o��A
�u��A vas
a OAL
o• X n•
AGENT. SUBMIT SAMPLE TO LAND5GAPE
AN
ANSCOO W NTPCMAO~
CAPAT MALLOW
a GAL.
r• x r'
ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO
PLAN VIEW
ea
"TYRltll
GLOV
VAR NM
`°°
r`x'•
PLAG I NG BARK MULCH REJECTED MATERIAL
Ci°N°'"r'O"+IA
LW�e
VAR L'1111'r
6e1.
w x eA•
•
HILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AT THE
CCA
TcrTAr NYSItlOw
own ROO "M
S GAL
O, X n•
EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR.
• r
CLY
C .YTOOTOMA CALLUTi0101ots
vlour iNo", "a
look-
MRL (S) r• M&MM P21t PLANT
an
CAME.LAA+APONICA VAR
CRIULIA VAR
B GAL
40• X u•
5. ALL SHRUBS SHALL BE PLANTED 2"
CSG
T4ACCIC+Rer, G
eouOaMA
T4A^ Wft am,
K=,K
R 64L
r• x r•
ABOVE FIN 15H GRADE TO ALLOH FOR
"r-
�` `
e� T oM.D'
r ,.aR"L0 IAN �"°°•Xn•IM
SETTLEMENT. ANY SHRUBS HHICH GH HAVE
ce
eoRlsa '",aeT °"1°
,
VAA V XI RrCLS'
vAR Tvoler MLLr'
S 64L
n' X n•
GROHNS BELOW FINISH GRADE AT THE FINAL
INSPECTION WILL BE REPLACED AT THE
_77
-
NL 2W
F y
Ceo
C T" eoaeYoroA
OMO Z TIO
S OAL.
w X r-
EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR. REFER TO
CWMAWY96OPPOUA
PAMW!"'TiM
IGAL
TVXV,
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CORRECT PLANTING
II
E•
A n,me
SiLv�R a�G[ wtAo1++R
R 64L
w X r'
PROCEDURES, AND INSPECTION
aD�r
NON,R
OAL.
D• X 0'
REQUtREMENTS.3,�,
,
R
ROCALLMIA 'IBM'
NCR
R GAL.
V, X n•
SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION
LT
LB
LAVATaEA TA4AfRb1ACA
'BAIRrLlY'
LOPI""ll evuMCNNBMVAR
VAPIL MAUI"
VAR IAIOI°L!T'
R GAl-
e64L
p, X n.
Q
1
1. VETERANS SECTION TRELLIS SCALE: 1/4"=V -011Z
Ma
Tae1NSRDr
MT1Wa AwIOANA
VAR tiUTAnINDY
AP"CANIwRMRouae
AMeeAN fox
R GAL
V-Xr•
n• x n•
J
Mc MYRICA CALR'OPINICA PALM WIAc MYMU 6". n- x v-
MINES
MY
MTRIIa CCMWr
TI{a FITRRe
I G4L
O• X n•
W
NPP
NANDRM PLAM PASIMON'
I4ANN.Y BA'a00
VAR RAM PAM10N'
R 6AL.
OF
PP
GYI'TANIN1e PRrRM10
PALOMM NUTIOOSA
sow OVA
'BwALo'A SAM
GAL
6 GAL.
w x w
n- x R.
W
Uj
�
POLYOTICNM "Atm"
MUPIP1 °WOM P OIN
I GAL.
n- X n•
QPM
PYD
PnTOMO1IL TOBRl4
vAR TWNaiLlR'r DY14p'
DIWANP MOCK M PAPA
VAR ,ravLNeb W Ws'
► OAl-
r" X r'
RA
evsA CAL11low410A
MPPIRSEPOTT VAR CAN'I
GAL.
o• x V.
V
co
M
W Mr VaINMPow
CATALNA PSO
I GAL
Is, X W.
...
Tr
TaJd111M PItlITICAr
SHIN ORIIMAIDIR
I GAL.
V/
N
Vt
'ALO111 T
V/1/�U'1 "" T.16DIM'
VaWe'1 RIG4TIM TCPrNT0e1R1
VAR `ORPIMA'4
6WNRO LAUPAS'M r
DOI1nL NM
I GAL
1 GAL
n• X n'
� W
'eIl'1'ER eM0W14..dICQ'
VAI! vuT'EJVM ONOR eN0111'LAIGT'
r• x r'
WV
W IMLIA WO AND PIAOW
N4X
► 601
r- X r,
Xc
XTLO°MA CONUST41
SNNY XTLOSMA
16AL.
n• x n-
O
B�IIOLe
APC
ART VAR
Helm164E
0• X Q'
r -A
"OWCATIJ'
OOP
GUARA LNPWW Rl
TNBOT OU PRL'
NA -K
I GAL
n' X n•
PPI
AVALA LE PP
4
NOL
WRIMPIDCALMO VAR
SvEaeREna PAYLILY
I GAL
Q' X Q-
'6TRiRDS LO POW
NTLLLOD)
NeA
NBCMINA eAHOWRaA
CORAL MEL°
I GAL.
n• X n•
LC LANTANA CAMARA BUIN LANTANA I GAL. V X n•
M
NOTA X PACeea•III VAR
CATMINT VAR
I GAL
C, X n•
�
SIX HILL GIANT'
'OOK HILLS 610NT'
PA
POW4001 1A ATMIPLICR'OLIA
RAOIAN DACE
104..
w X r•
{,
PAS
P110167E'KN 'APPLE BLO!°OK
Pi'M'1@'ION VAR
'APDL/ BLOSSOM'
1".
n• X V.
PIC
,= APPANkuLA*A VAR
'=StIMCAFW+ILOX VAR
164L.
n• x n•
PERSPECTIVE
PMT
rINeTUMCN ""WONT'
PINKETON VAR
I GAL
v X a•
R
TOdCLLe ewR►a1r
sus,Aa.,eT ROM
1 G AL
4• X n'
2. VETERAN'S SECTION TRELLIS
U
Sc
SALVIA CLEVULAW11
CLev2LAD SAGt
I GAL
v' x O•
MOLD BOULDER WATER -WASHED GRANITE BOULDER
MIN. 12" ABOVE O ROUGH EDGE$, REFER TO SCHED.
ADJACENT fG. BELOW
SL SALVIA La1CARNA MDtICAN BUSH SAM I GAL n• x °•
da"M 7'IDNWNT' VAR MDNkiNr'
rj
f- I
Pee
rpTUOA GLweA VAR
OLIE PROSE
I GAL
n, X n•
;.. ' • }v' I/3 MAX OF BOULDER
nuaw xu'
vAR *LA)AN eus'
..+,,.,
TO BE BINK
Ar
MI L10107PNO10N 4vMPeRv"W*
MUE CAT GRAM1".
1 GAL.
n• X V.
y'Y•. y'•Vl/.�1,h,��• .
MOA
A enaNs N
1A
vAROAs1o'
au AIA ORA"vAR
'ADAaa'
I GAL
a• x 12.VAJL
•�.'
MRV
YrcV Nle TA'
YAM vAuOGATA'
w.AA GR400 vAR
vAREmArA•
164E
n• X n•
_:
- .. .... .. ... ,'.. ...: n: ..,.!, "• '.,::- :".,.. .. •.
....
SECTION "
4 DEPTH CLASS 11
o a
r:
NAPA SONOMA BOULDER SCIHEDULE:�IEGATE IV/w%"Iz
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
O C y
C�
Pec
I,aal16111 M OVACUM VAR
'CIrI1lU'ICQrACTU'7'
DWeRP Puo u
PCurtAN GRAB!
I GAL.
o- X V.
T ENGTW WIDTH TOT NO. QUI
%�'�/ ,^f
APPROVAL LI —(o�� —V-
W° o
-
14
26
A
.MY{M CAIDATIM
ULD ORIOa!
1 GAL. • n•
OL.
TItlAIIOWLAR SPACING
Application 6Vumb®r
4""
U ,h
AC
81.001' ING AN4.L AL COLOR
4' POT° • r• OL.
TAWaWLAR MACM
D
BAwc MW.CN
T LAYM PIR OR I®IIIOOD 041111001110 SAW MA.CN
l_G_ t/✓� �l(1�TL"_
Date 05/091D8Date
■
Eeaeaa+KARVN11KIA
SANA BAweAPA DAISY
�•
I. EACH BOULDER TYPE IB IDENTIFIED ON THE PLANTING PLAN. A TOTAL OF
Scale: 1"=20'
L DAW41IP A,eG! Wo LAYN T'EDALLION DY14N' BY PAClIC SOP OR API,1eDV� SOYOL
'
Signature
68 BOULDERS ARE REQUIRED,
LA
LATANAMONTOYM001e
TRALLNVLANTANA
IGAL,
24,=
2. STONE SELECTION AND PLACEMENT SHALL BE APPROVED
Drawn: RBH
NPwLe)
a
TRUHHWW.AR SPACANO
Case Manager
BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FINAL BETTING.
Job: 05.1141
Le LANTANA MONTRYMNI NS TRALINSLANTANA IaaL AS.=�IANdULAI% M,C�
��`N` °I`''NN`a NAPM
APM 010"00
3. BOULDERS MUST BE SIMILIAR IN COLOR TO THE STONE VENEER USED ON THE
M
MYOPOIaM PAJA:vlOLY'7
"MAN C'ImC
N.ClL
i GAL.
ra OG.
TRIA MLLAR RPACINS
EXISTING BRIDGE.
Sheet
{
4. SUPPLIERR PENNINSULA BUILDING SUPPLY, 11'15 ASTER AVENUE, SUNNYVALE
M
NO" W4-. VAR
44l.LaeNA'
CAST RCd! VAR
'S.4LLaNJA'
IGAL.
3r, OG
TAtlANOIALAR ePAOR'10
,1
•. .. .. -. _ .. ....
+, wr ^7✓.}. .n:.._•..+-.Isi.". ... u,.-� ". .,i:`;" 4i -.. •,f!-' :. 1.
v. ..
408Z46�55®.
v
vEseNA VAR
►+OrESTunAC+e PiMRe'
NOMOSTKAO% PAIRPLe
VRIBIIAA
PLATO
a,=
MArOULAR SrACNs
L-11
3. FIELD BOULDERS
Or Sheets
" ofdsl-�Ts
Go US
A W!Pi m
v
wmt #Z7) —4;. -
ebb,
I w%bjl NO Im 0
1p
119
00 R 0
JV&%!;RORTEN
MMMRDA.A-fM IAI,&l I &-
l ,
/
TREE TABLE
TREE SURVEY LEGEND
OP TRl�
TREE To ae Re rout D
rrJl'6ER CORRESPONDS TO TABLE
J IREE To BE PRES11i4ED
v�J
A TOTAL OF 21 TREES ARE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL
c
h
TREE REMOVAL NOTES
I. THE LOCATION OF ALL SERVICE RUNS SUCH AS WATER SUPPLY,
SMAM ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONES, GABLE, GAS, STORM DRAIN
LINES, ETC. SHALL BE ASCERTAINED BEFORE TREE REMOVAL WORK
15 STARTED. WHERE SUCH LINES WILL BE AFFECTED BY TREE
REMOVAL, OR WHERE TREE REMOVAL MACHINERY WILL BE
WORKING NEARBY, LINES SHOULD BE CAREFULLY SEALED OFF,
RESPONSIBILITY PROTECTED OR DIVERTED. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S
APPROVAL L�'�/i 'ONSIBILITY TO TAKE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONARY ACTIONS.
2. REMOVE ONLY THOSE TREES INDICATED ON THIS PLAN TO BE
Application Number REI-fdVED. TREES INDICATED TO BE REMOVED SHALL HAVE ALL
ROOT'S AND STUMP REMOVED TO A DEPTH OF 24° BELOW GRADE.
ate
Signature
Casa Manager
REVISIONS
z
Q
CL
W
U)
W
W
w
F—
W
V
w
w
O A N
W 0o
F...1 w 0
Un
0 cn
F� ..Ln
A N
Date 05/09/06
Scale: 1'%--2a
Drawn: RBH
Job: 05.1141
Sheet
TS -1
IRWOMBRRR TO A1WOMTRI�ORr
e1?SOL N MM
PHTek"J1L GLN qmm - IBAR TO ARBORIST IWOR,
(Fl.dl
eocwc nAre
Coal% 1 NATE
a4%yAwwvE
RFAWN FOR REMOVAL
1. Amus Rhomblfolla
Whlte Alder
-- Remove
Poor condition
2. Aklue Rhomblfolla
White Alder
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
3. Gledltela triacanthos
Locust
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
4. Gieditsla trlacanthos
Locust
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
5. Gleditsta triacanthos
Locust
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
6. Gledltela triacanthoe
Locust
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
1. Gleciltele trlacanthos
Locust
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
S. Gledltsia trtacanthoe
Locust
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
% Sequoia sempervlrens
Coast Redwood
-- -- Remove
Poor eondltlon
10. Sequoia semper0rens
Coast Redwood
-- -- Remove
Poor oondltlon
Il. Sequoia sempervirene
Coast Redwood
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
12. Glediteia triacanthos
Locust
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
13. Gieditela triacanthoe.
Locust
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
14. Fraxinus spp.
Ash
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
15. Fraxlnus spp.
Ash
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
16. Fraxinus spp.
Ash
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
IT. Fraxklus spp.
Ash
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
18. Fraxinue app,
Ash
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
1% Fraxww app.
Ash
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
20. Liquidambar 9t9r.
°,weetsum
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
21. Liquldambar etyr.
Sweetgum
-- -- Remove
Poor condition
TREE SURVEY LEGEND
OP TRl�
TREE To ae Re rout D
rrJl'6ER CORRESPONDS TO TABLE
J IREE To BE PRES11i4ED
v�J
A TOTAL OF 21 TREES ARE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL
c
h
TREE REMOVAL NOTES
I. THE LOCATION OF ALL SERVICE RUNS SUCH AS WATER SUPPLY,
SMAM ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONES, GABLE, GAS, STORM DRAIN
LINES, ETC. SHALL BE ASCERTAINED BEFORE TREE REMOVAL WORK
15 STARTED. WHERE SUCH LINES WILL BE AFFECTED BY TREE
REMOVAL, OR WHERE TREE REMOVAL MACHINERY WILL BE
WORKING NEARBY, LINES SHOULD BE CAREFULLY SEALED OFF,
RESPONSIBILITY PROTECTED OR DIVERTED. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S
APPROVAL L�'�/i 'ONSIBILITY TO TAKE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONARY ACTIONS.
2. REMOVE ONLY THOSE TREES INDICATED ON THIS PLAN TO BE
Application Number REI-fdVED. TREES INDICATED TO BE REMOVED SHALL HAVE ALL
ROOT'S AND STUMP REMOVED TO A DEPTH OF 24° BELOW GRADE.
ate
Signature
Casa Manager
REVISIONS
z
Q
CL
W
U)
W
W
w
F—
W
V
w
w
O A N
W 0o
F...1 w 0
Un
0 cn
F� ..Ln
A N
Date 05/09/06
Scale: 1'%--2a
Drawn: RBH
Job: 05.1141
Sheet
TS -1
1
City Hall,
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
CITY OF
Telephone: (408) 777-3223
C � � EkTINO
FAX: (408) 777-3366
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
January 19, 2006
Re: Consider a Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision to uphold an appeal of
Application No. U-2005-04, Gate of H,;aven 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 petitioners are Oak
Valley Community Awareness and Keith Hocker. (If a rehearing is granted, the new hearing
may be rescheduled to a later date).
At its January 17, 2006, regular meeting, the C ipertino City Council voted to deny the petition.
The decision by the City Council above descri,�ed is final effective January 17, 2006 The time within
which judicial review must be sought is gcverned by §1096.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure which is 90 days following the abotie effective date.
Sincerely,
GW,,1S)e4WP—
Grace Schmidt
Deputy City Clerk
Encl. Resolution No. 06-026
cc: Community Development Dept.
City Attorney
Robert Lindberg
22555 Cristo Rey Dr.
Los Altos, CA 95014
Keith Hocker
21150 Canyon Oak Way
Cupertino, CA 95014
Printed on Recycled Paper
Mark Edwards
10512 Peralta Ct.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Jim Wheeler
22238 Hammond Way
Cupertino, CA 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 06-026
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE
PETITIONS OF KEITH HOCKER AND OV 'A REPRESENTATIVES 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 nevi features including upright markers; and
Whereas, application U-2005-04 was brought 3efore 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 testir.iony, 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 dec .sion 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 .'anuary 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 pro iuced at any earlier city hearing. (See Municipal
Code § 2.08.096B(1).)
3. The City Council did not exclude any --vidence presented by the petitioners at any prior
city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096 3(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).)
5. The petitioners have failed to present ,my evidence that the City Council failed to provide
a fair hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(4).)
Resolution No. 06-026 2
6. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion
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 mannE r required by law.
b. The City Council's decision is supporte d by findings of fact.
c. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by
substantial evidence in the record of proce ,-dings.
7. The specific allegations contained in the p,;titions 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 17`h day of January 2006, by the fo .lowing vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES: Wang, Kwok, Mahoney, Sandoval
NOES: Lowenthal
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST
/s/ Kimberly Smith
City Clerk
APPROVED:
/s/ R chard Lowenthal
Mayor, City of Cupertino
Resolution No. 06-026 3
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 .ocation, 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 purp ase 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 les;; so from others, can be mitigated with additional
landscape screening. With this proposed miQ--,ation, 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 conveniencc .
Municipal Code section 2.08.096 state
"A petition for reconsideration shall sI ecify, 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 t1 at 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 tI.at 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 nct 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 appeE.1 of Application No. U-2005-04, Gate of Heaven
Cemetery, 22555 Cristo Rey Drive, Cupertinc 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 addres&-ld under item #2. below. The other petition was
submitted by Oak Valley Community Awarer.ess representatives Jim Wheeler and Mark
Edwards and asserts as follows:
1. An offer of new relevant evidence, whicl in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not
have been produced at any earlier city hearing:
Response: The appellants have failed to provide new relevant evidence of any kind that was not
considered at the appeal hearing.
Resolution No. 06-026
rd
OVCA PETITION
FINDING
1. The amount of inscription
Council member Junes' 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 h3rizontal markers. The Council did not
comparison to upright
make a determinat.on based on whether an upright
markers.
marker allows for snore text than a horizontal marker,
since the size of horizontal markers is discretion
2. The Cemetery failed to
A survey of their client community is not a requirement,
survey their client
although one may :lave been requested by the Planning
community, yet improperly
Commission. Evidence of several informal surveys was
stated and represented that
presented at the he firing.
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 Coun -.il 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
IFINDING
1. The facts to be provided by
Three speakers voluntarily gave their 2 -minute speaking
the presenters opposing
time to Jim Wheoler. "Mr.. Wheeler was not identified
upright markers could not be
to me by either sraff 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
of OVCA or any other opposition group." Declaration
of Patrick Kwok, pg. 2, ¶ 8-9.
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
a. This is based on opinion only. The mayor asked the
Resolution No. 06-026
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.
appellant mar y 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 offf;r of proof of bias in favor of upright
markers.
5
b. Mayor Kwok also allowed b. This is irre: evant. The audience frequently responds
the proceedings to deteriorate to speakers whether it is allowed or not. In this case, the
to the point that there was audience responded to comments made by both
applause after individuals proponents arLd opponents. The applause did not
spoke in the public hearing. contribute to in "unfair hearing."
c. He also failed to interrupt c. This is irre: evant. The mayor is under no obligation
speakers who spoke on the to interrupt speakers who get off point.
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 Kwok was
d. With the exception of the monsignor, who spoke for
inconsistent in cutting off
3:04, this alle gation is untrue. Speakers who spoke
speakers at 2 minutes during
longer than two minutes were asked to conclude their
the public hearing. Some
statements.
opposition speakers were cut
off promptly at 2 minutes, yet
speakers in favor were not.
e. Not all opposition speakers e. Three speakers voluntarily gave their 2 -minute
were allowed to speak; 3 speaking tim ; to Jim Wheeler. They were not obligated
speakers were denied the right to do so.
to speak and the opposition
was thus denied due process
and their right to be heard.
f. The Council did not f. Petitioner makes no offer of facts to support the
consider or discuss the allegation. V6hile Council may not have discussed the
reasoning used in the decision Planning Commission decision, they received and
by the Planning Commission, considered al l of the relevant information before making
even though some of the same their decision.
Resolution No. 06-026
concerns voiced by the
Planning Commissioners were
presented during the public
hearing.
g. During the Council
g. This is based c,n opinion only. After the close of the
discussion of the upright
public hearing each council member openly discussed
markers issue, the Mayor
his or her opinion of the evidence received. There is no
spoke in an animated and loud
restriction on their individual presentation regarding
manner, speaking over the
their animation or tone of voice.
orderly opposition speakers
and quashing the opposing
views of the dissenting
Council members.
h. Council Member Sandra
h. This is based c,n opinion only. A reduction in the
James said she "would not
number of upriglLt markers was not a subject of the
even consider" a reduction of
appeal. Refusal to consider it as an option does not
the number of upright
necessarily demcnstrate "inadequate consideration of
markers, demonstrating
opposition's position." Petitioner makes no offer of facts
inadequate consideration of
to support the all 3gation.
the opposition's position.
i. The Mayor allowed a "rush
i. This is based o :z opinion. Petitioner makes no offer of
to judgment" summarily
facts to support fie allegation. Some might say that 2
overruling a 5-0, well-
hours and 27 minutes of testimony and deliberation
researched and well -reasoned
would not be con sidered a "rush to judgment."
Planning Commission
decision.
3. Over half the presentation
This is irrelevant. The landscape review issue was part
by the appellant, and over half
of the appeal and needed to be discussed.
the 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
Resolution No. 06-026
System was not working for
the OVCA spokes -person
opposing the upright markers,
preventing communication of
relevant facts on the matter to
the City Council and the
Community.
at the time of the meeting;
b. The failure of audio-visual equipment does not
constitute an "unfair" hearing. Information was
adequately transmitted verbally to the City Council.
HOCKER
PETITION
FINDINGS
1. Patrick Kwok has a clear
Prior to th ! meeting Patrick Kwok conferred with
conflict of interest in this
the City Attorney regarding his volunteer work for
matter and should have
his church, St. Josephs in Cupertino. Declaration of
removed himself from the
Patrick Kwok, pg. 3, ¶13.
vote.
Patrick Kw )k 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.
2. Comments by Sandra
This statement is based on petitioner's opinion only.
James regarding the
The petitioner fails to support his opinion with
regarding the Oak Valley
concrete facts necessary for a showing of bias.
Neighborhood make "her
biased in this case and
demonstrate... that her
judgment and reasoning in
the case is suspect."
The Council heard and considered everytb ing presented. There is no _basis in any material
provided in the petitions that supports th,: allegation that the Council failed to provide a
fair hearing.
3. Proof of Facts which demonstrate tf at the City Council abused its discretion by:
a. Rendering a decision which w as 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
or discuss the rationale, reasoning or facts
Petitioner makes no offer of facts to
_support the allegation. While Council may
Resolution No. 06-026
N.
behind the 5-0 decision of the Planning
Commission denying upright markers.
not 'lave discussed the Planning
Conunission decision, they received and
con:;idered all of the relevant information
befr re 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 pre,,scribed by law; and/or 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.
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 Novf mber 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.
November 28, 2005
Gate of Heaven Cemetery
Attn. Robert Lindberg
22555 Cristo Rey Dr.
Los Altos, CA 95014
City Hall,
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3223
FAX: (408) 777-3366
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Re: 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.
Dear Mr. Linberg:
At its November 15, regular meeting, the Cupertino City Council City Council moved to uphold the
appeal, and the applicants do not need to go back to the Planning Commission to have their
landscaping plans approved. Enclosed is your appeal refund in the amount of $145.00.
Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council's
decision in this matter, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city clerk within ten days
after the council's decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal ordinance code
§2.08.096.
Sincerely,
Grace Schmidt
Deputy City Clerk
cc: Community Development Dept. and City Attorney
Prrnterl nn R -curled Paner
TREE REPORT
GATE OF HEAVEN CEMETERY
22555 CRISTO REY DRIVE
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
TELEPHONE 650-280-3248 OR 650-428-3730
ON OCTOBER 25,2005, I INSPECTED EXISTING TREES PROPOSED FOR
REMOVAL AT THE CEMETERY S: TE.
Assignment
At the request of Mr. Robert Lindberg the director of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, I
was asked to evaluate the condition and give recommendations concerning the
removal of several existing trees on the ;emetery site.
Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees
in relation to the existing construction aj-e accurately presented on the plans provided.
Summary
There are twenty one trees on this site ,vhich are proposed for removal and
replacement. The property owner would like to remove all these trees and replace
them with more attractive trees. If these trees were offered for sale in the California
nursery market place they would have little or no value at this time but the
International Society of Arboriculture does have an appraisal system that attempts to
establish tree replacement value. I will t.se this system to approximate replacement
value for each tree.
TREE NO. ONE ALNUS rhombifolia (WHITE ALDER) 20 inch diameter tree in
poor condition with a heavy infestation A mistletoe. The white alder is a very fast
growing moisture loving tree that is native along creeks and rivers throughout
California. This tree has been drought si ressed and is in decline. The value of the tree
is calculated as follows: 314 sq. in. cros i section @ $27 dollars per sq. in. = $8486 x
10% species class = $894 x 10 % condil ion = $84.90 x 80 % location gives a tree
value of $68.00 dollars.
TREE NO. TWO ALNUS rhombifolia (`VHITE ALDER) 17 inch diameter tree in fair
condition with a moderate infestation of miAletoe. The value of this tree is calculated as
follows: 227 sq. in. cross section ag 27 dollars per sq. in. = $6130 x10 % species class =
$613 dollars 20 % condition $122 x 80 % location gives a tree value of $98 dollars.
TREE NO. THREE GLEDITSIA trio canthos (HONEY LOCUST) 11 inch
diameter tree. This species is fast grow ng and native to the cold winter regions of
central and eastern North America. As in adaption to its native environment the tree
is late leaf out and drops its leaves early in the fall. For this reason , the tree lacks
foliage during a large part of the growinj season in California. The value of this tree
is calculated as follows: 95 sq. in. cross section @27 dollars per sq. in.= $2566 x 30
% species class = $770 x 50% condition = $385 x 80% location gives a tree value of
$308 dollars.
TREE NO. FOUR GLEDITSIA triacazthos (HONEY LOCUST) 11 inch diameter
tree. Repeat of calculations for TREE ND. THREE for a value of $308 dollars.
TREE NO. FIVE GLEDITSIA triacanthos (HONEY LOCUST) 10.5 inch diameter
tree.The value of this tree is calculated -.s follows: 86 sq. in. cross section @27
dollars per sq. in.= $2339 x 30 % species class =$702 x 50% condition =$351 x 80 %
location gives a tree value of $281 dollars.
TREE NO. SIX GLEDITSIA triacantros (HONEY LOCUST) 12 inch diameter
tree. The value of this tree is calculated is follows: 113 sq. in. cross section @ 27
dollars per sq. in.=$3054 x 30% species class = $916 dollars x 50% condition --$458 x
80 % location gives a tree value of $367 dollars.
TREE NO. SEVEN GLEDITSIA triacanthos (HONEY LOCUST) 13inch diameter
tree. The value of this tree is calculated as follows: 143 sq. in cross section. @ 27
dollars per sq. in.= $3861 x 30 % species class = $ 1158 x 50% condition = $579 x 80
% location gives a tree value of $463 do llars.
TREE NO. EIGHT GLEDITSIA triacanthos (HONEY LOCUST) 11 inch diameter
tree. Repeat of calculations for TRRE 1\ O. THREE for a value of $308 dollars.
TREE NO. NINE SEQUOIA sempervirens(COAST REDWOOD) 16 inch diameter
tree. This tree species is native along thi; foggy California coast where it requires
considerable amounts of annual precipil ation. In its native environment the tree grows
quite rapidly to about 70 to 90 feet in 25 years.The cemetery site would be too dry to
support this this tree species with out cc nsiderable supplemental irrigation. The value
of this tree is calculated as follows: 201 sq. in. cross section @ 27 dollars per sq. in. =
$ 5431 x 90 % species rating =$4888 x 80 % condition rating =$3910 x 80 % location
rating gives a tree value of $3128 dollars.
F)
TREE NO. TEN SEQUOIA sempervirens (COAST REDWOOD) 2 trunks 8.5 inch
diameter and 12 inch diameter a multi -trunk tree. The value of this tree is calculated
as follows: 330 sq. in. total cross section area @ 27 dollars per sq. in. = $8915 x 90%
species rating =$8023.50 x 80 % condition = $6419 x 80 % location gives a tree value
of $5135 dollars.
TREE NO. ELEVEN SEQUOIA sempervirens (COAST REDWOOD) 4 trunks
13,6,10 and 16 inch diameter a multi trunk tree. The value of this tree is calculated as
follows: The value of this tree is calculated as follows: 1591 sq. in. of total cross
section area @27 dollars per sq. in. =$42959 x 90 % species rating $38663 x 80 %
condition rating= $30930 x 80 % locati )n gives a tree value of $24744 dollars
TREE NO. TWELVE GLEDITSIA tr acanthos (HONEY LOCUST) 1 I inch
diameter tree . Repeat calculations for TREE NO. THREE for a value of $308 dollars.
TREE NO. THIRTEEN GLEDITSIA tiacanthos (HONEY LOCUST) 11 inch
diameter tree. Repeat calculations for TI ZEE NO. THREE for a value of $308 dollars
TREE NO. FOURTEEN FRAXINUS oxycarpa `Raywood'(RAYWOOD ASH) 6
inch diameter tree. This tree is native to Australia, grows quickly to 35 feet, and
requires moderate watering. In Californ a, the tree is grafted on various ash root
stocks. Many of these root stocks are veracious and cause sidewalk and curb damage.
For this reason, the tree requires a large space for root expansion. In the cemetery,
these 6 trees are planted much too close to grave markers and damage is already
beginning to occur. To prevent serious damage to grave markers, these trees should
be removed as soon as possible. The value of this tree is calculated as follows: 113 sq.
in. cross section @27 dollars per sq. in ==$3051 dollars x 30% species class =$915 x
80% condition =$732 x 50% location = $366 dollars
TREE NO. FIFTEEN FRAXINUS o) ycarpa `Raywood' (RAYWOOD ASH) 10
inch diameter tree. The value of this tree; is calculated as follows: 314 sq. in. cross
section @ 27 dollars per sq. in. = $8478 dollars x 30% species class = $2543 x 80%
condition = $2034 x 50% location = $1017 dollars
TREE NO. SIXTEEN FRAXINUS oxycarpa `Raywood' (RAYWOOD ASH) 10
inch diameter tree. Repeat calculations 'or TREE NO. FIFTEEN for a value of $1017
dollars.
3
TREE NO. SEVENTEEN FRAXINU5. oxycarpa `Raywood' (RAYWOOD ASH) 7
inch diameter tree.The value of this tree is calculated as follows: 153 sq, in. cross
section @ 27 dollars per sq. in. = $4131 dollars x 30 % species class = $1239 x 80 %
condition= $991 x 50% location = $496 dollars.
TREE NO. EIGHTEEN FRAXINUS oxycarpa `Raywood' (RAYWOOD ASH) 9
inch diameter tree.The value of this tree is calculated as follows:254 sq. in. cross
section @ 27 dollars per sq. in. =$6858 collars x 30% species class =$2057 x 80%
condition = $1646 x 50% location = $8: 3 dollars.
TREE NO. NINETEEN FRAXINUS oxycarpa `Raywood' (RAYWOOD ASH) 8
inch diameter tree.The value of this tree is calculated as follows: 201 sq. in. cross
section @ 27 dollars per sq. in. = $5427 dollars x 30 % species class =$1628 x 80%
condition = $1302 dollars x 50% location = $651 dollars.
TREE NO.TWENTY LIQUIDAMBAR styraciflua (AMERICAN SWEET GUM)
7 inch diameter tree. This tree is native to the eastern United States along streams and
rivers. This tree tolerates very damp soil but requires good drainage and does not
thrive in heavy clay soils. The tree grows to 60 feet tall and 25 to 30 feet wide. In the
current location the trees are drought str,-ssed and stunted, produce a heavy crop of
seed pods, and 2 have suffered structural damage from wind storms. The cemetery
would like to remove the damaged trees and to replace them with a more drought
tolerant species. For replacement trees,' would recommend Chinese pistache trees
which have the same brilliant fall color ' )ut are more drought tolerant. The value of
this tree is calculated as follows: 153 sq. in, cross section @27 dollars per sq. in.
=$4131 dollars x 50% species class =$2066 x 30% condition =$620 x 80% location =
$496 dollars.
TREE NO. TWENTY ONE LIQUIDAMBAR styraciflua ( AMERICAN SWEET
GUM) 6 inch diameter tree.The value o:'this tree is calculated as follows: 113 sq. in.
cross section @ 27 dollars per sq. in. =;3051 dollars x 50% species class =$1526 x
30 % condition = $458 x 80% location = $366 dollars.
Observations
The health and structure of each tree is i ated on a scale of 1 to 5 (exceptional to poor).
Please note that each tree's structure is distinguished from tree health. The
combination of health and structure ratings for the twenty one trees are converted to
individual specimen descriptive ratings as follows:
Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor
9110,11 3,4,596,7,8.12,13,14,15 2 1,20,21
16917,18,19
n
Exceptional specimens should be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are
needed to retain them in their current condition should be used.
Fine specimens can be retained if poss ble but without major design revisions.
Mitigation procedures here are intende i to limit damage within accepted
horticultural standards in order to maintain the horticultural value of the cemetery
site..
Fair specimens are possible to retain bat new replacement specimens would increase
the horticultural value of the site
Poor specimens cannot significantly be improved regardless of care. For those
retained, mitigation may not be typically be requested.
Recommendations
The following mitigation suggestions me intended to reduce the extent of removal
impact on site to acceptable levels, so that the horticultural quality of the site can be
retained and the cemetery trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline
in the near future. If changes occur duri ag construction, contact the arborist to
develop the best solution for protecting the health of the cemetery trees:
I recommend that Trees #1 through 21 be removed to facilitate new construction
and new tree installation with imprc ved tree species.
Value Assessment
The value of trees are appraised according to the ISA Appraisal trunk formula method,
Ninth Edition 2000.
The trees to be removed have the following; values tree #1 $68 dollars, tree #2 $98
dollars tree #3 $308 dollars tree #4 $3(8 dollars tree #5 $281 dollars tree #6 $367
dollars tree #7 $463 dollars.tree #8 $308 collars tree #9 $3128 dollars tree #10 $5135
dollars tree #11 $24744 dollars tree #12 $? 08 dollars tree #13 $308 dollars tree#14
$366 dollars tree #15 $1017 dollars tree A46 $1017 dollars tree #17 $496 dollars
tree #18 $823 dollars tree#19 $651 dolla•s tree #20 $496 dollars tree #21 $366
dollars. For a total amount of $ 41056 dollars.
The following replacement trees have alrez.dy been purchased and installed: Sequoia
sempervirens `Aptos Blue' sixteen 36" boa. and eight 48" box trees.; Sequoia
sempervirens `Soquel' four 60" box trees; 'runus caroliniana fifteen 36" box trees and
Arbutus marina seven 36 inch box trees.
5
These replacement trees more than equal thy; value of the removed trees . Forty one
thousand dollars worth of nursery replacement trees have already been purchased from
Valley Crest Specimen Tree Nursery plus tLe contract installation value for these trees of
$40,000 dollars for a grand total of $81,000 dollars of replacement costs. These
replacement expenses will more than mitigate the proposed removal of the 21 trees in this
report.
Sincerely yours,
Mark Beaudoin Cert. Arborist WC 1050
RI
D)t
, k
2120 ;
13-L
TREE TABLE
rrr. TYPE OF TREE
) < TREE TO Be REMOVED
100 NUMBER GORRE5POND5 TO TABLE
TREE TO BE PRE5ERVED
w
7
x16
x15
A TOTAL OF 21 TREE -5 ARE PROP05M FOR REMOVAL
[�K,
- 141 t TO Aw~ Ilan
� ""f
"Muwwwa 1!AM NM MW&
L aimsw 1110oe ifolla
Uvto Aldir
-- Remove Poor condition
2. Amus 10 ltolla
Wxtw Aller
-- -- Rwx vw Poor condition
3. Gledltsla trlacanthoa
Locwt
-- -- Rwwvw Poor condition
4. Cslwdltsla trlacanOws
Lociat
-- -- Remove Poor condition
!3. GlwdRsla trlaca MQ0
Locwt
-- -- Rwwvw Poor condition
i. GIwdRNa triacanthos
Locust
-- -- Rwnovw Poor condition
�. dgedttala triacanOws
Locwt
-- -- R move Poor conalltion
Q 04aditsla trtaeanthm
Locuat
-- -- Rwmovt Poor condition
'.!. 6wquola srnparvtrw»
Coast Rodiuood
-- -- Risiovw Poor condition
b. e0quota aewipervlrero
Coast Redwood
-- -- Remove Poor condition
IL bequola swWwvirww
Coast Redugood
-- -- Remove Poor condition
12. GladRata triacanthoa
Locwt
•- -- ROW v Poor condition
13. Giedltala triacanthos.
Locust
-- -- Rwe0v0 Poor condition
14. Fraxinw spp.
Ash
-- -- Rwiw" Poor condition
15. IYaxw» spp.
Ash
-- -- Rwnovw Poor condition
16. Praxlnus spp.
Ash
-- -- Remove Poor condition
11.14-axwu spp.
Ash
-- -- Remove Poor condition
18. Praxwr Opp.
Ash
-- -- IRwo" Poor condition
f8. FIF&X w app.
Ash
-- -- Remove Poor condition
ZD. Ltqutda�bar Styr,
bu►estgun
-- -- Remove Poor condition
21. Liqutdaebar at9r.
&WOL M
•- -- Reno" Poor condition
rrr. TYPE OF TREE
) < TREE TO Be REMOVED
100 NUMBER GORRE5POND5 TO TABLE
TREE TO BE PRE5ERVED
w
7
x16
x15
A TOTAL OF 21 TREE -5 ARE PROP05M FOR REMOVAL
valley
Oak v alley Community Awareness
November 7, 2005
Cupertino City Council
10350 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Gate of Heaven Permit Applic. U-2005-04 — Public Hearing Nov 159 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 Commission 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 of the 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 on August 11, 2005. On August 23,
2005, the Planning Commission approved these agreements in a 5-0 decision.
Oppogition 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 -Peninsula
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 23rd 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.
Oak Valley Community Awareness
Additionally, contrary to statements in the Cemetery's appeal letter, there will be a
definite visual impact 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 historic 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 Commission'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,
important, and necessary to protect the neighbors and the character of the neighborhood.
'Phis requirement was prompted in part by both:
• The Cemetery's unapproved removal of the 12 feet high oleanders between the
cemetery and the homes, which served as an essential sight and sound buffer
between the Cemetery and the nearby homes. This was done early in 2005,
without submitting a permit, to the detriment of the neighbors. Removing the
buffer area 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 reviewed for appropriateness. OVCA research has determined
that after annual pruning to the specified 12 foot height limits, these trees may
end up as stumps, and may be ineffective as replacements for the oleanders.
On behalf of the neighborhood and Oak Valley Community Awareness, thank you for
your support.
Respectfully subm'+ted,
n Wheeler
22238 Hammond Way
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
Mark Edwards
10512 Peralta Court
! • �' r
! •r A 1•• 1 i., Zwk+ t ?c (t r ` f'wg�'.
A, J a
t .. r Y :q. . 0 'at-�A Z1 . •�R .ti r �7Z, '• r LU`!
`v ,'!►�;r4t:�'''r' ' Jd l,' �, , *y of [ N f t
• ��, �s N%rel
,.•t `t;;. �_ b .a' t �'�` •l • �"� . .rr i �� .�' .K •� i�,•` ;, s"tG�y`V
} c• Y. 74 r� •h��,j`Ji .:.,T� {� 1 ��„t� ,r•I.f I J/�i� "t �, r � , IS r�
�; �•;%7e „{►�/- .,, ,L,,�/]' � F`•I�f• �y �. / 1��► ern. �,, w�, .. .. ��{..�y ^�'
'/.!•`. � � �.`t. ,�,,� }r. :�• r/ j��_• '.t �'�'�.� h•.t� :�_ r�J��j?�j` FYI ` �-+••�i.'.} ...,M ,t.{
•�' /Y' • . ' �'• �, Ctt " f I R� t i • t' • " �iiv�7�e gr .+,
•F •. AV ` yar � � n � ��• � a'-rs � � �'� �s'i� ' r� '�"
.� .i •►' :•. ♦ � V• '7' •" _:♦ � �,�•�✓rot :Y. !�� ..', s
�•'�r'•;s'ca�r..• . � �j� "7 d,r• .a �r �. �Fien.J/�� �� f4_ ,E�� 'r.L,.
�•� .i' ��,y�l�• - yfiC�►,��Lr, .. �.!�� � � ♦ t/=,�.�, �f?' S• i ilfI �� .5,� • � .r r. 1
�, `'�-'�'►',�'•�rt.� :.' ��.►` � . jl. .�-1 ��'!f/'R• 1�i�,��'V r�i .� •"� � . y � .���� .���`" ��,. � �''�.}1p/� �bTj'. .,. :
y�y.�`fir*. �.. 1.' J/ 1 i • ��•�/,py t �•i �.j� • r/ .�''� 1�7 �j�' I
• w i S ' �; • I.� •t' " , -i ?�• / f ' � �' "u'YL#•'t j / r ���yy/' / � �t�',�` l�: l:.i �~• •� � ��� 11��!•�.
`fri�YY`y ✓"d . 40 ;?w
�„r�y�1♦, _� ;` � `+ 1 ` � •f �+! ••,�•� �1r' ,•,►'moi 1 � �a !' � ► 1- • a'. l ',.� • , _,
�• •1�' �1 ♦ ' 1 ��� ! .^tr t r,/,I , •y�,• ~may
IPM foil
Oro
it
LA w
Aff
# ♦ .1j1 _ Ali! J.i/tI►�f ,� vP �a.....
ti
ti
C,AOOOP- - , o.it,,
L r 1� �
F- ••+� :._•( 7.� `�,Ir jy / f• 4 dr. ) i
e / t ,S i �� S « ;t. i• �•�G- . "+:l Biu 1 �< �.(��aC�,_ � \.:al_ , J �_
!ZyiT •� `• �;. j',4��, }• _ •.i� >._1� rr l el,
' i 3_ Y. -r .r7 t t.6 + ♦' � +,�X 'tl.��t i ��x�� ;�• xt'k' M � s ♦'^ � i•f"n- : � . � I.. r
i,C _,+ • iil *�t•� '�"ti -gin � � .--_ • p � �. 1 ft �� � �� .A t'• �` � i7 � �: �.,^��..
�• � � •j...t" •t �1.-` 1 S+�-�"�"r1 .1 4 wry ��.. � `�v.,' �S 1i'-.
r � .�� ,fir. t _. �;r/ I � `c Lj.� rY, r � r 'rTtt' �` � :�r}.�� 1i •; r .�••���', { � .J
�, 1 r• '� _ yip •�, �',���... +i. t '\t}r
.�+r r �,_ ♦�"+a ♦ • ~ ..�, ` r �; �/ "sr �,, L��'�M1 % _ _ : _ ,'♦.s1.. -fir` ' `l' � - �...
•i i. �,�
M
�:� *. �• � .., � i +1{ .-- '`yam" , _.�� � s`
`.ter- r`�• �-�. �.. ".` �_ .''i i i. -.
iz
IT
�.7r f; -rte . -n •_r � •. 'iti3.:
t t. •• r { � �i i •�• pr'{ �'�„ '' it iY •e•I > '1
J .f = , `� ; r .."y • 4 �t , f Jh f� ,7, zr 1•�.7p. � � w a.. �
AG
- rn
`+J r
M0
d it
14mappo w v w lrw-iu Jwo —fu
WA
ltr�
7110" —.. �w , z zl_ f . .?
MOKIRI 40
OFF.;;
It
VA
p iz � � �� � kd ���a,
n i„�c.
44
r
.MOM A,
WTV
74
: 3wif,
die -4.
Iwo
Aq
tie'. �` .h:'• ~'` ,''�•'`. ♦+w '+<
, A65.
T �f�jy . Si �,•y
t
IL'.Sc,:...i`,_t..A''tauiiiiit,YLiti'.►a••.�-L:i
Y�.
i-.
. _ E
E +' -14
+
11yy 4 -R! i Lr S �� ' '4� ,,,,, `1?. s•, L� � Ak• � ' + �.t' W ht ;;."tk�r�+.r �_;. YA + 't �"'.' ` r ✓'J Y;� +, r" J+rr. 'f � �1`MI
ems. `�'f� a ''� �y �.}S' �,� 4 '•� ° .c +�'A�7��r�V��,•�.. w ::.�� - r .r „�"'��r �. s � t" + h..l��~ f�`". r
•.sY +moi• ' Is. a „� ��, +' S { +,. { 1L'. �•.t1 I `
■,i
l
' t r
} M
r
v ' lig
.r
r, ,. ..;r. ,... .. _.� a �� ....,. "�"^"'1� y rw. ,,,•art•' .�*, y,��M ...
.-«•..cv' .�:#...,. .-.ref .. ..' ..., � •a�.,w+» a"'+. _
.a
it ww►
Y
hv--d-�'I N 0 S d' I'll jay woo �
r
Or"
AM
a
�ll
lt'.
Oil