Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-09 City Council (19)of Pa]!o C tyManager ’sR e pot TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: AUGUST 9, 1999 CMR:334:99 695 ARASTRADERO ROAD: RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE OPEN SPACE EASEMENT GRANT DEED OF 1978 FOR ALTA MESA IMPROVEMENT COMPANY TO ALLOW THE USE OF ABOVE- GROUND HEADSTONES IN AN APPROXIMATELY ONE-ACRE PORTION OF THE ALTA MESA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY. RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached draft Resolution authorizing execution of the amendment of the Open Space Grant deed for the Alta Mesa Memorial Park Cemetery (see Attachment A). The amendment will put into effect the Council’s decision of June 21, 1999 to grant Alta Mesa’s request for permission to use above-ground monuments in a portion of the easement area. Staff further recommends that the approval be subject to the following conditions: No The improvements to the Above-Ground Monument Area shall be in substantial compliance with the plans entitled "Alta Mesa Memorial Park," dated April 29, 1999, prepared by Karl Van Deinse, Landscape Architect. The plans were submitted by Alta Mesa Improvement Company to the City on April 29, 1999 and are on file in the Planning Department of the City. The maximum height of any monument extending above the surface of the ground in the Above-Ground Monument Area shall be thirty-two (32) inches measured from the surface of the ground where the monument is to be placed. Co The existing perimeter landscaping on the Above-Ground Monument Area which runs along Arastradero Road and the proposed landscaping to be installed by Alta Mesa CMR:334:99 Page 1 of 3 in the Above-Ground Monument Area, as shown on the plans, shall be permanently maintained by Alta Mesa Improvement Company. BACKGROUND The applicant, Alta Mesa Improvement Company, is proposing to amend its open space easement with the City to allow the placement of above-ground headstones in an approximately one-acre site located in the northern portion of Parcel A. This parcel is adjacent to Arastradero Road and Miranda Avenue. The above-ground headstones would be made of granite and have a maximum height of 32 inches. The attached City Manager’s Report includes more detailed project and site information (see Attachment B). DISCUSSION On June 21, 1999, the City Council approved the application to amend the open space easement to allow the placement of above-ground headstones in an approximately one-acre site located in the northern portion of Parcel A. This motion passed 4-1, with Mossar voting "no," and Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum and Schneider absent. The City Council approved the staff recommendation based on the Conditions of Approval and the following findings: 1.The proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies; The use of above-ground headstones is a "compatible use" as defined in the Restrictions of the Open Space Easement for Parcel A; and o The project will not result in any significant environmental impact with the implementation of a Negative Declaration. The attached City Manager’s Report includes more detailed project and site information (see Attachment B). The implementation of Council’s decision to approve the amendment of the open space easement requires execution of a Resolution. The amendment incorporates the conditions of approval required by City Council and would authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of the City (see Attachment A). ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution Authorizing Execution of the First Amendment of the Open Space Easement Grant Deed for Alta Mesa Improvement Company. B. City Manager’s Report CMR:285:99, dated June 21, 1999. PREPARED BY: Phillip Woods, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official CMR:334:99 Page 2 of 3 DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: G. EDWARD GAWF U Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~, ~ EMILY ~SON Assistant City Manager co:Planning Commission Alta Mesa Improvement Company, Marilyn Talbot, Manager, 695 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, California 94306-3895 CMR:334:99 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE OPEN SPACE EASEMENT GRANT DEED OF 1978 FOR ALTA MESA IMPROVEMENT COMPANY (Alta Mesa Cemetery) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby DECLARE as follows: WHEREAS, the Alta Mesa Improvement Company ("Alta Mesa") conveyed to the City an open space easement ("Easement") by a "Corporation Open Space Grant Deed Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 51070-51087 and California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 421(e) and 422(d)" dated December 13, 1977 and recorded on February 28, 1978 in Book D493 at Page 241 of Official Records of Santa Clara County ("Deed"); and WHEREAS, Alta Mesa in a letter dated December I0, 1998 requested that the City amend the Easement to permit Alta Mesa to erect above-ground headstones in a portion of the area subject to the Easement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palo Alto considered the request at a public hearing at its regularly scheduled meeting on May 21, 1999 and submitted its report to the City Counci!; and WHEREAS, at its regularly scheduled meeting on June 21, 1999 the City Counci! reviewed the matter and considered the report of the Planning Commission and the testimony of the public; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION i. The Council finds and determines that Alta Mesa’s Amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Palo Alto and allows for an intensification of use which is compatible with the purposes of the Easement as originally established in 1978. The Council further finds and determines that the Amendment will not result in any significant impact on the environment. SECTION 2. The Amendment is approved on the conditions set forth in Section 2 of the Amendment, namely: a. The improvements to the Above-Ground Monument Area shall be in substantial compliance with the plans entitled "Alta Mesa Memorial Park," dated Apri! 15, 1999 prepared by Kar! van Deinse, Landscape Architect ("Plans"). The Plans 990803 lac 0090338 were submitted by Alta Mesa to the City on April 29, 1999 and are on file in the Planning Department of the City. b. The maximum height of any monument extending above the surface of the ground in the Above-Ground Monument Area shall be thirty-two (32) inches measured from the surface of the ground where the monument is to be placed. c. The existing perimeter landscaping on the Above-Ground Monument Area which runs along Arastradero Road and the proposed landscaping to be installed by Alta Mesa in the Above-Ground Monument Area, as sh6wn on the Plans, shall be permanently maintained by Alta Mesa. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves and accepts the Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof this reference, and further authorizes the Mayor to execute same on behalf of the City. SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 51083 of the California Government Code directs the City Clerk to endorse the acceptance of the Council on the Amendment. SECTION $. Pursuant to Section 51087 of the California Government Code, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to record, or have recorded, the Amendment in the Office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County and to file, or have filed, a copy of with the County Assessor of Santa Clara County. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 990803 lac 0090338 Recording Requested by and when Recorded Mail to: Alta Mesa Improvement Company c/o Lakin Spears, LLP 285 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth Floor Palo Alto, California 94301 Attention: J. Anthony Villanueva, Esq. SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE FIRST AMENDMENT TO OPEN SPACE EASEMENT GRANT DEED This First Amendment To Open Space Easement Grant Deed ("Amendment") is entered into as of , 1999 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipal corporation ("City"), and ALTA MESA IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, a California corporation ("Alta Mesa"), with reference to the following: Recitals A. Alta Mesa by that certain Corporation Open Space Easement Grant Deed Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 51070-51087 and California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 421(e) and 422 (d) dated December 13, 1977 ("Deed") conveyed to the City an open space easement ("Easement") on and over certain real property owned by Alta Mesa located in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California more particularly described in the Deed ("Easement Area"). The Easement was accepted by the City Council of the City on February 27, 1978 by its Resolution No. 5521. The Deed was recorded in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, California on February 28, 1978, in Book D493, at Page 241 of Official Records. B. The Easement provides, in relevant part, that no monuments can be installed in the Easement Area except headstones level with the surface of the ground. C. Alta Mesa made application ("Application") to the City to amend the Deed to provide that monuments above the surface of the ground could be installed in a portion of the Easement Area more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("Above-Ground Monument Area"). The City Council of the City on June 21, 1999 by its Resolution No. approved the Application with the following conditions: (i) the improvements contemplated by Alta Mesa to the Above-Ground Monument Area shall be in substantial compliance with certain plans submitted on April 29, 1999 by Alta Mesa to the City and on file in the Planning Department of the City; (ii) the maximum height of the above-ground monuments shall be thirty-two (32) inches; and (iii) the existing perimeter landscaping on the Above-Ground Monument Area running along Arastradero Road and the proposed landscaping to be installed by Alta Mesa in the Above-Ground Monument Area shall be permanently maintained. AMIC/OPSE 1st Amend c2 jj 07121199 D. The City and Alta Mesa now wish to amend the Deed to reflect the approval of the Application and the conditions of approval of the Application. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and Alta Mesa agree as follows: Amendments,,, and Agreements 1. Above-Ground Monuments. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Deed and subject to the satisfaction of the Conditions (hereafter defined in Paragraph 2), monuments extending above the surface of the ground may be constructed, erected, installed and permitted to exist in the Above-Ground Monument Area effective as of June 21, 1999. 2. Conditions. The right to construct, erect, and install monuments extending above the surface of the ground in the Above-Ground Monument Area, as provided for in Paragraph 1 above, is subject to compliance with all the following conditions (individually, a "Condition", and collectively, the "Conditions"): a.The improvements contemplated by Alta Mesa to the Above-Ground Monument Area shall be in substantial compliance with that certain Preliminary Landscape Plan ("Plan") for Alta Mesa Memorial Park, Sheet L-2 prepared by Karl van Deinse-Landscape Architect, as the Plan is contained in that certain booklet ("Booklet") entitled "Monument Marker Application," prepared for Alta Mesa Memorial Park dated April 15, 1999. The Booklet and Plan were submitted by Alta Mesa to the City on April 27, 1999 and are on file in the Planning Department of the City. b.The maximum height of any monument extending above the surface of the ground in the Above-Ground Monument Area shall be thirty-two (32) inches measured from the surface of the ground where the monument is to be placed. c.The existing perimeter landscaping on the Above-Ground Monument Area which runs along Arastradero Road and the proposed landscaping to be installed by Alta Mesa in the Above-Ground Monument Area, as shown in the Plan, shall be permanently maintained. In the event that a Condition shall not be complied with, then City shall give Alta Mesa written notice of such and Alta Mesa shall have thirty (30) days after the receipt of such notice to comply, or cause compliance, with su6h Condition; provided, however, in the event that such Condition cannot be complied with in such thirty (30) day period, then Alta Mesa shall be deemed to be in compliance with such condition if Alta Mesa commences, or causes the commencement of, such compliance with said thirty (30) days period and thereafter diligently proceeds to complete, or cause the completion of, such compliance within a reasonable period of time. 3. Effect on Expiration of Easement. The City and Alta Mesa agree that nothing contained in this Amendment sha!l in any manner whatsoever affect the expiration of the Easement. Since the restrictions contained in the Easement, including, without limitation, the restrictions relative to above-ground monuments, will no longer be applicable after the expiration of the Easement, the City and Alta Mesa further acknowledge and agree that nothing contained in this Amendment, including, without limitation, the Conditions, shall be of any force or effect after the expiration of the Easement. 4. Inconsistency. In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the Deed with respect to the matters which are the subject of 2 this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall control. Except as amended by this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Deed shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Alta Mesa have executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth hereinabove. Approved as to Form: CITY: CITY OF PALO ALTO,- a municipal corporation Sr. Asst. City Attorney Approved: By: Mayor City Manager Accepted by Resolution of the Palo Alto City Council on .... 1999 City Clerk ALTA MESA: ALTA MESA IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, a California corporation By: Its: By: Its: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF On , 19__, before me, the undersigned, a notary public, personally appeared , personally known by me/proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public " STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF On , 19__, before me, the undersigned, a notary public, personally appeared , personally known by me/proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the .person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public EXHIBIT ;’A" Legal Description for Release from Open Space Easement - Parcel "A" All that certain real property situate in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara and State of California described as follows: Being a portion of that certain Open Space Easement Parcel "A" granted to the City of Palo Alto by Resolution No. 5521 filed for record in Book D493 of Official Records at page 239, Santa Clara County records and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the easterly line of Manuella Avenue with the southerly line of Arastradero Road as established in that certain Final Order of Condemnation entered in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara and filed for record on March 8, 1963 in Book 5935 of Official Records at page 129, Santa Clara County records; THENCE along said southerly line of Arastradero Road, North 63050’50’’ East, 163.70 feet; THENCE leaving said line South 26°09’10" East, 204.99 feet to the centerline of West Apricot Avenue; THENCE along said centedine and along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the right, whose radial bears South 31 °47’35" East, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 19°30’23" for a distance of 31.90 feet; THENCE continuing along said centedine North 63°50’50’’ East, 58.52 feet to the easterly line of that certain Open Space Easement Parcel "A" granted to the City of Palo Alto by Resolution No. 5521 filed for record in Book D493 of Official Records at page 239, Santa Clara County records; THENCE along said line South 26°09’10’’ East, 137.83 feet; THENCE leaving said line of Parcel "A", South 80°16’41’’ West, 167.19 feet to the centerline of West Apricot Avenue; THENCE along said line North 09°43’19’’ West, 19.72 feet; THENCE’along the arc of a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 05°47’59’’ for a distance of 9.90 feet; THENCE leaving said centerline South 80°16’41’’ West. 200.48 feet to the westerly line of Parcel "A" and the easterly line of Manuella Avenue; THENCE along said line North 01 °43’00" East, 215.97 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing a total area .of 64,399 square feet or 1.478 acres more or less. 296115exa.wpd Sheet 1 of 2 II ~ I IIIIIII IIIIIOM[ : 07/27/99 SHEET Fm ~ 7#~6 296115 OF ~ ~EETS 296tlS.G7 Attachment B City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENWIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: JUNE 21, 1999 CMR:285:99 695 ARASTRADERO ROAD: REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION BY ALTA MESA IMPROVEMENT COMPANY TO AMEND AN OPEN SPACE EASEMENT IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE USE OF ABOVE- GROUND HEADSTONES IN AN APPROXIMATELY ONE-ACRE PORTION OF THE ALTA MESA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommendation Staffrecommends that the City Council approve the application based on the Conditions of Approval (see Attachment B) and the following findings: 1.The proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies; The use of above ground headstones is a "compatible use" as defined in the Restrictions of the Open Space Easement for Parcel A; and The project will not result in any significant environmental impact with the implementation of a Negative Declaration (see Attachment C). planning C.9mmission Rec0mmen.dati0n The Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the requested amendment of the open space easement. Instead, it stated that the appropriate course of action is for the City Council to consider abandonment of the Open Space Easement for Parcel A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, Alta Mesa Improvement Company, is proposing to amend its open space easement with the City to allow the placement of above-ground headstones in an approximately one-acre site located in the northern portion of Parcel A. This parcel is CMR:285:99 Page 1 of 4 adjacent to Arastradero Road and Miranda Road. The above-ground headstones would be made of granite and have a maximum height of 32 inches (see Attachment A - Site Location Map). The attached Planning Commission staff report includes more detailed project and site information (See Attachment D, May 26, 1999 Planning Commission staff report). BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW,,,,,AN’D RECO.MMENDATIONS Planning Commission: The Commission reviewed this project at its May 26, 1999 meeting. The Commissioners discussed various issues, including the effectiveness of the existing landscape berm and screening that surrounds the open space easement. There was concern that the open space should consist of vistas that were more visible from the public view. The Commission concluded that the landscape berm and screening were a requirement imposed by the City and were intended to screen the cemetery use as well as provide open space. The open space was not intended to provide expansive vistas for the public. A second issue was the original rationale for the prohibition of above-ground headstone monuments. The applicant suggested that, at the time of the open space easement agreement, it was not offering this type of burial style at Alta Mesa Memorial Cemetery. Staff has reviewed the Planning Commission minutes from January 25, 1978, and City Council minutes from February 27, 1978, and has not found any reference to a discussion about the restriction of above-ground headstones. The Commission also discussed whether the proposal is actually a grant for tax relief for the open space easement. The Commission concluded that the applicant should pay the taxes that are required and the City should offer to terminate the open space easement that would allow removing the restriction for above-ground headstones. Consequently the Commission approved a motion recommending the City Council consider abandonment of the open space easement for Parcel A. (This motion passed 4:2-1-0, Schmidt and Cassel voted no, with Bialson absent.) (See Attachment E - Planning Commission minutes dated May 26, 1999, for additional detail.) Summary. of Significant Issues If the City Council follows the recommendation of staff, the proposal to amend the open space easement would be approved with the findings that the proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies, the use of above-ground headstones is a compatible use as defined in the Restrictions of the open space easement, and the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. Staff believes that use of above-ground headstones is a compatible use because the intent of open space easement agreement will be preserved. The use of above-ground headstones would allow protection of the natural habitat, would not CMR:285:99 Page 2 of 4 impact recreation needs, and would provide the same impact as flush headstones in the natural environment in that the above-ground headstones will not be visible from the street. If the City Council follows the recommendation of the Commission, the applicant’s proposed amendment would be rejected. If the applicant still wanted to have the right to install above- ground headstones, the open space easement would need to be terminated by nonrenewal or abandonment. The property owner would need to initiate the nonrenewal or abandonment. The abandonment of an easement is controlled by the Open Space Easement Act of 1974, Sections 51090 - 51094. Once the notice of abandonment has been served, the Planning Commission would need to review and City Council would need to approve the abandonment of an open space easement by resolution. RESOURCE IMPACT The Alta Mesa Memorial Company gave notice to the City ofnonrenewal of the open space easement for Parcel A in 1993. This notice ofnonrenewal triggered the County of Santa Clara Tax Collector to start incrementally increasing the taxes on Parcel A. The tax that was assessed on Parcel A prior to the notice ofnonrenewal was $135.34. The taxes collected in fiscal year 1998-1999 on Parcel A were $2,380.20. This amount will increase until the full tax .value will be assessed when the open space easement expires on December 31, 2002. The tax does not increase significantly because the property has been incrementally increasing since the notice ofnom’enewal in 1993. The City of Palo Alto receives 10 percent of the amount of taxes collected from the County of Santa Clara. The approximate amount of tax dollars for fiscal year 1999-2000 that City of Palo would receive prior to the abandonment would be $258.12 and after the abandonment it would be 5331.67. The Palo Alto Schoo! District receives 50 percent of the amount of taxes collected from the Count3, of Santa Clara. The approximate amount of tax dollars the Palo Alto School District will receive in fiscal year 1999-2000 prior to abandonment is $1,290.65 and after the abandonment would be $1,658.37. The abandonment of the open space would impose a financial penalty and new taxes on the propert3, ov,~ner. The penalty would be assessed at 12.5 percent of the full cash value of the property ($288,556), for a total of $36,069. The penalty money would be remitted to State General Fund. In addition, the property owner would be assessed new propert3, taxes based on the current value of the property. CMR:285:99 Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENTS A.Site Location Map B.Conditions of Project App"oval C.Environment Impact Assessment D.Planning Commission staff report, dated May 26, 1999 (Attachments A, B and F are not included) E. Planning Commission excerpt minutes, dated May 26, 1999 Plans (City Council Members only) PREPARED BY: Phillip Woods, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:Gi ~--~W~ARD GA~ Director of Planning and Community Environment Assistant City Manager Planning Commission AIta Mesa Improvement Company, Marilyn Talbot, Manager, 695 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, California 94306-3895 CMR:285:99 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A P 695 Arastradero Road PF LM Graphic A~achment to Staff Report Scale: 1" = 600’ Noah Attachment B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL .69S ~krsatradero Avenue, 99-EIA-12 The project shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted on April 29, 1999, on file in the Planning Department. The maximum height of the above ground headstones is 32 inches. The existing perimeter landscaping on Arastradero Road and proposed landscaping on t_he proposed site shall be permanently maintained. S:\695Aras.sr Page 9 Attachment C ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Cit.g of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 1.Project Title:Alta Mesa Memorial Park Cemetary Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phillip Woods, Senior Planner 650-329-2230 4. Project Location:695 Arastradero Avenue 5.Application Number(s):99-EIA’12 P~ojec;~ Sponsor’s Name and Address:Marilyn Talbot, Manager 695 Arastradero Road Palo Alto, CA 94306-3895 7. General Plan Designation:Open SpacelControlled Development 8. Zoning:RE/Residential Estate District Regulations 9.Description of the Project: Application to amend an open space easement to allow above ground headstones with a maximum height of 32inches in an approximately one acre portion of the Alta Mesa Memorial P.ark Cemetery. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Gunn High School and residential to the north, Foothill Expressway to the south/west and Adobe Creek and the City of Los Altos to the east. 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resoumes I Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hyd rologyfWater Quality Land UselPlanning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a X NEGATIVE’DECLARATION will be prepared. ., I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAP, ATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Project Planner Director of Planning-&-kCommunity Environment Date Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site "as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially sign’.rficant, less than significant with mitigation, or less tl’ran significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there areone or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effgct has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identi~ the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether Such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 6) c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than ’Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were !ncorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages’where the statement is substantiated. 7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially ] P~enUally ,Significant Significant Mitigation In¢orpor~te~ Irnp=¢t !. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantia! adverse effect on a scenic vista?1 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but 1 X not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 1 X quality of the site and its surroundings? d} Create a new source of substantial light or glare which 1 - X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? i1. a) c) a) AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. in determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmentat effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evatuation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 1, 2 Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 1, 2, 3 Williamson Act contract?(L-9) Involve other changes in the existing environment 1 which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Conflict witl~ or obstruct implementation of the 1,2 ’ applicable air quality plan? b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1,2 X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation In¢orpor=ted Less Than Significant Impa~ c) d) e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under~n applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1,2 1,2 1,2 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) b) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? i ) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinan.ce? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conser’v’ation plan? 1,2 (N-~) 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-l), 1,2 1,2 X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources PotentJally Significant Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impa~ CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:Vl. !) 1,2 (L-7) 1,2 (L-8) 1,2 1,2 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 4 2,4 IN-5, N-8, N-10) 2,4 (N N-8, ’ N-10) 2 (N-5) X X X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Irnp.~ct c)X d) e) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Vll. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the protect? a)Create a.significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) e) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a projec~ located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the.vicini~ of a private airstrip, would the projec~ result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? 2,4 (N.5) 2, 4, 6 (N-S) n/a 2,7 2, 7 2,7,8 2,8 n/a n/a X X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impa~ g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? - Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 1,2 X X VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: 2 X X a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b)Substantially deplete groundwater supp|ies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 2 (N-2) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or fiver, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d)Substantially.alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ¯ f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ’ 2 nla X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which woutd impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 9 (N-6) X X j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?2 X IXI LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?X b)XConflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,2c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 2 X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important 2 X t mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?_ Xl. NOISE. Would the project result in: a)X2,7 (N-3) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise-Drdinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 2, 7 X ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent incre.ase in ambient noise 2, 7 X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 2, 7 X ambieni noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?_. Issues and Supporting Information Sources PotenU=lly Slgnlfic=nt Issues . Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant Irnp=ct e)n/a XFor a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? nla X XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: XInduce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1,2 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,n/a X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating nla X the construction of replacement housing etsewhere? XlII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new o~ physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other perforTnance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? 11 10 2 2 2 XIV. RECREATION X X X X X ]! Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant issues . Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated $ignificznt pact Impact a)1, 2 x b) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilitie’s such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? n/a X TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) b) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantia| in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible .uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate parking capacity? Conflict with ~adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1,2 (T-7, T-8) 2 3, 12 2 1,3 X X d) e) f) g) XVl. X X X UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 1,2 X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?_ b)1,2 XRequire or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existinB facilities, the construction of which could cause s~gnificant environmental effects? ]2 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less "i’~ a n Significant Impa~t c)1, 12 X d) e) g) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies availak~le to serve the project from existing entitlements and ~’esources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposa1 needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1,2 2, 12 X X X X X~l. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) c) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre..history? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,’either directly or indirectly? 14 14 14 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Signlfl¢ant Irnpa~ SOURCE REFERENCES: 1.Site visit. Planner’s knowledge of the site and project. 2.Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 & Maps L-7, L-8, L-9, N-l, N-2, N-3, N-5, N-6, N-8, N-10, T-7, T-8 3.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18-Zoning Ordinance 4.Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and VVindload 5.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 6.Uniform Building Code 7.Information submitted by the applicant 8.City of Palo Alto Fire Hazardous Materials Division, written comments on project 9.FEMA Flood Map, Community Panel Map #060348 0005DX, dated 9/6/89 10.City of Palo Alto Police Department, written comments on project 11.City of Palo Alto Fire Department, written comments on project 12.City of Palo Alto Transportation Division, written comments on project 13.City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division, written comments on project 14.Answers substantiated through the responses provided in items I-XV1 of this environmental checklist. EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: !. Aesthetics 1 a, and lc The proposal would have a less than significant impact on the scenic vista of the open space from Arastradero Road because the subject site is screened by an existing landscape berm. The proposed location of the above ground headstones on the site preserves existing landscaping which includes trees and perimeter trees that will integrate the area with the surroundings. The proposal would maintain the scenic value of the site with the proposed extensive landscaping including trees and.shrubs that will continue the natural open space character. The above ground headstones would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The location of the above ground headstones would maintain a definition of open space on the site. The proposed height, width and scale of the above ground headstones would preserve the natural environment by maintaining a low profile on the site. Mitigation Measures: None required. Attachment D Planning Division Staff Report AGENDA: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 26, 1999 Planning Commission PhillipWoods, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning 695 Arastradero Avcnue: Application by Alta Mesa 1 Improvement Compa.ny ~o amend an open space easement in order to allow the use of above ground headstones in an approximately one acre portion of the Alta Mesa Memorial Park Cemetery. File No. 99-EIA-12. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and comment on the project, forw’ard and recommend approva! to City Counci! based on Conditions of’Approval (see Attachment 13) and the following findings; . . The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policy; o o The use of above ground headstones is a ’compatible use’ as defined in the ’Restrictions’ of the Open Space Easement for Parcel A;and A Negative Declaration with a finding that th~ project will not result in any significant environmental impact (see Attachment F). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site description:. The Alta Mesa Memorial Cemete~’ is located on 72 acres at the intersection of S:[Pl~[Pladiv{PCS R1695aras.sr Page 1 Arastradero Road and Miranda Drive/Foothill Expressway. There are 45 acres of the Cemetery developed with cemetery uses and the remaining 27 acres are undeveloped. The Alta Mesa Memorial Cemetery is the only cemeter3’ in the City of Palo Alto. -The Cemetery has a variety of burial styles that include mausoleums,’ cremation wall niches, monuments, above ground headstone markers and flush headstones markers. Project Proposal: The proposal is to allow the use of above ground headstones in an approximately one acre site located in the northern portion of Parcel A (see Attachment E). This parcel is adjacent to Arastradero Road and Miranda Road. The subject site is screened from the street with a landscaped berm and’fence. The above ground headstones will be made of granite and have a maximum height of 32 inches. TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant: Owner: Assessor’s Parcel Number: Alta Mesa Improvement Company Alta Mesa Improvement Company APN:167-03-022, APN: 167-03-023, and APN: 167-03-024 Comprehensive Plan Designation:Open Spaee/Controled Development Zoning District RE/Residential Estate District Surrounding Land Use:North: Gunn High SchooFresidential South/West: Foothill Expressway East: Adobe CreeldCi~’ of Los Altos BACKGROUND On December 13, 1977, the Alta Mesa Improvement Company granted three Corporation Open Space Easements pursuant to the Open Space Easement Act of 1974 (California Government Code, sections 51070-51087, the "Act" and California Revenue and Taxation Code section 42I (e) and 422 (d)). The three Corporation Open Space Easements consist of Parcel A which encumbers 4.5 acres, Parcel 13 which encumbers 3.6 acres and Parcel C which encumbers 4.7 acres for a total of 12.9 acres encumbered with open space easements. S:[Plan[PladivlFCS RI695aras.sr -.Pgge 2 On February 27, 197g, the City’Council approved the three Corporation Open Space Easements by Resolution No. 5521. The Open Space Easement D.eed restricts the uses of which can be made of the Open Space Easement Area. Among thos.e restrictions is a prohibition against the erection of mausoleums, columbariums or any other structures, including monuments, except for headstones level with the surface of the lawn. The restrictions allowed a dirt berm installed around a portion of the perimeter. In addition, roadways and parking areas were allowed to be installed to provide access to the grave sites. The grant was a gift to the City from the Alta Mesa Improvement Company, but pursuant to the "Act" the grantor has received property tax relief based on the open space restrictions of the easement (see Attachment C). On August 10, 1993, the Alta Mesa Improvement Company gave notice to the City of non-renewal of the Open Space Easement for Parcel A. As a result of such notice, the open space agreement as it affects Parcel A will expire on December 31, 2002 (see Attachment D). On April 9, 1998, an Architectural Review application for the site development of parcels A, B and C was approved. The proposal included a layout for a new interior road, flush monument cemetery plots and landscaping. On December 10, 1998, the Alta Mesa Improvement Company made a forma! request to the City pursuant to para~aph 3 of ’~The Restrictions" section of the easement, to allow the grantor to place above ground headstones in an approximately one acre portion of the Open Space Easement for Parcel A (see Attachment E). Y OLI CY....IMPLICATIONS The project must be determined to be consistent with the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan Objectives, policies and programs relevant to this project and staff comments are as follows. Goal N-l: .4 Ciry~,ide Open Space System that protects and Conserves Palo Alto’s ]’,"atural Resources and Provides a source of Beauty and Enjoyment for PaIo Alto Residents:. The proposal maintains and preserves the open space character of the site. The location of the above ground headstones would be screened from the street with existing landscaping and vegetation. The proposed maximum height of 32-inch for the above ground headstones would prevent any possibility that larger monuments in the future that would impact the open space character. Policy N:.!: Manage existing pubIic open space areas and encourage the management of prig’ate ope~ space areas in a manner that meets habitat protection goals, public safety Page 3 concerns, and low impact recreation needs. The impacts on the open space will be minimized because the proposal provides an extensive amount of landscaping which includes trees’and shrubs that will continue the natural open space. The allowance of above ground headstones would still protect the scenic value of the open space. Goal B~.~!: A thriving, Business Environment that is Compatible with Palo Alto’s Residential Character and Natural Environment. The current inventor3’ of above ground headstone burial plots will be depleted prior to the expiration of the open space easement. The proposal would allow the Alta Mesa Memorial Cemetery an opportunit3’ io replenish above ground headstone burial plots. policy,,B-4: Nurture and support established businesses as well as new business. There has been an increase demand in the community for above ground headstone burial sites that require an additional area be made available for such uses. The proposal would allow the cemetery to be competitive with other cemeteries in the local area by offering above ground headstone burial plots. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES There are several circumstances that have changed since the granting of the open space easement agreement in 1978 which include the increase in demand for above ground headstone burial sites and the character of the open space easement. The Alta Mesa Improvement Company has received significant increases in requests for burial sites that allow above ground headstones. This is attributed to the change in current trends for a traditional burial. The current inventory of above ground headstones is approximately 285 sites. The Alta Mesa Improvement Company has estimated that this inventory will be depleted in three years, which is prior to the expiration of the Open Space Easement in December 31, 2003. The character of the existing open space easement area and surrounding neighborhood has changed. The open space easement area was originally very open to Arastradero Road and Miranda Road. The mature grov~’th of the landscape berrn around the perimeter of the cemetery has screened the proposed site from the street. In addition, the character of surroundi.n, g neighborhood has changed from a rural are~ to a built-out area.with single family and multi-family residential uses. Compatible Use The Open Space Easement ageement contains a para~aph that generally does not allow structures including above ground headstones to be erected on the easement property unless the City Counci! holds a public hearing and makes a finding that an3" such Page 4 improvements are a use compatible with the Restrictions as ’compatible use’ defined in Section 51201 (e) oft-he Government Code. The definition of "compatible use" is as follows: "Compatible use’ is any use determined by the county or city administering the preserve pursuant to Section 51231 or Section 51238 or.by this act ( the Williamson Act to be compatible with the agricultural, recreational, or open-space use of the land within the preserve and subject to use or open- space use unless the board or council finds that a.tier notice and hearing that such use is not compatible with the ag’ricultural, recreational or open space use to which the land is restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter. " Staff finds that the use of above ground headstones in the proposed one acre area of the open space easement for Parcel A is a "compatible use." The proposed height, location and scale of the above ground headstones will.still preserve the character of the open. space easement. The headstones will have a maximum height of 32-inches that will maintain a low profileon the site and provid..e .uniformity in the open space area. In addition, the subject site will be screened with existing and proposed landscaping. The area on which the above ground headstones will be permitted is nominal. The site to be devoted to above ground headstones is 18% of the open space easement area for Parcel A and only 3.8% of the total 12.853 acres which are subject to open space easement agreements. The Open Space Easement does give third parties the right to seek injunctive relief against any threatened construction that would violate the easement and to obtain attorneys’ fees. Although, any City Council action for relief from the easement restri_ctions would be given great deference, a third party.couldconceivably contest any such Council action in a suit to protect the open space. PUBLIC NOTI~CE Public Notice of this project.was provided by publication of the agenda in a local .newspaper of general circulation and public notice cards were sent to property ov, naers and utilitb’..customers within 300 feet of the site. -TIMELINE Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the project is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the City Council at a public hearing on June 21, 1999. S:lPlan’~PladivlPCS RI695aras.sr Page 5 ~ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is subject to an environmental review under provision of the California. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment, EIA (Attachment E) was completed for the project and based upon th~ EIA, it was determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been made available for punic review between May 6, 1999 and May 26, 1999. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:Location Map Attachment B:Conditions of Approval Attachment C:City Council Resolution No. 5521, Open Space Easement Agreement Attachment D:Notice of non-renewal 0fOpen Space Easement from Alta Mesa Memorial Improvement Company, Dated August 10, 1993 Attachment E:.Formal request from Alta Mesa Improvement Company, Dated December 10, 1998 Attachment F:Environmental Impact Assessment COURTESY COPIES Alta Mesa Improvement Company, Marilyn Talbot, Manager, 695 Arastradero Road Palo Alto, California 94306-3895 PREPARED BY:Phil!ip Woods, Senior Planner . REVIEWED BY:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrat~i.f Chief Plarming Official Page 6 Attachment C KESOLUTIOH iIO. 5521 P~ESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE C~TY OF PALO ALTO ACCEPTIHG TII~EE CORPORATIO[! OPENSPACE EASEMENT GRANT DEEDS FROM THE ALTA MESA-IHPROVE~NT COHPANY ’PURSUANT TO CALIFO~!IIA C0VER[~E[~Y CODE SECTIOIIS 51070-51087 AHD CALIFORiIiA REVENUE ArID TA/~&TIOII CODE SE’¢TIONS 421(e) AHD 422(d) %NIE~EAS, =he Al=a Mesa Improvement Company subm!E=ed Co =he City of Pale Al=o by letter dated December 14, 1977., a proposal =o es=ahlish an open-space eascmen= in the City of Pale Alto for =ha= cerEaln proper=y ~ooa=ed on =he sou~heas= aide of ArasEradero ~oad, Assessor’s Parcel No. 167-03-01S, consisting of EighTeen (18) acres of land more or less; and ~Er~EAS, Al=a Mesa Improvemenr Company modified =he original proposal by res=ric~ing =he area =o be covered 5y. sald open-space easement ~o ~hir~een (13) acres of land, more or less, and by dividing said area in=o =hree separate parcels (denomina=ed parcels A, B, nnd C), each ~o be covered by a separate openspace easement grant deed, as shown and descrlhed in =hose =hree documen=s en- =itled "COR2ORATION OPE[ISPACE EASE>(ENT GRA[[Y DEED PURSUA[~T TO CALIFO~HIA GOVERIP~ENT CODE SECTIOHS 51070-51087 AHD CAL~FORHIA KEVE[IUE AND TA21ATIOII CODE SECTIOII 421(e) AND 422(d)", a copy of each of which is a==ached here=o, Incorpora=ed by reference’hereln, and collectively referred ~o as ~he Openspace Easement Crane Deeds; and -- ~{ERF.AS, pursuan= =o See=ion 51085 of =he California Govern- men~ Code, =he proposal was referred =o the Planning Commission of the City of Pa!o Alto, which revie~ed =he mac=or a~ i=s regularly scheduled meeting of January 25, !97S, and a roper= =hereon has been received from said Planning Commission; NO~¢, THE~EFORY., the Council of =he City of Pale Al=o does P~SOLVE as follows: ~ SECTION !o Purauan~ =o =he requiremen=s of See=ion 51084 of =he Cil"ifg’~nfe Government Code, the Counci! hereby finds "=ha= preserve=ion of said land ns open space is consls=en= wi=h =he general plan of =he Ci=y of Pale Al=o and is in =he bes= in=crest of =he City of Pale Al=o (1) because ~he !and is essen=ially unim- proved and, if re~ainad easen~ial!y in i~s natural s~ate, has scen!~ value to the public and said Openspace Easemen~ Gran~ Deeds con- tain appropriate covenants ~o that end, and, (2) fur=her, because retaining said land as open space will add to =he amenities of living in neighboring urbanized areas and wi!l help preserve =he rural charac=er of =he area in which s&Id land is located. SECTiO!; 2. Purauan= ~o See=fen 510a3 of =he California Covern- men= £’~’de, =he Counci! hereby accep=s said O~enspace Easemen= Grnn= DecCa and direct= =he Ci=y Clerk ~o endorse =he accep=ance of the Counail on ~he s~T~e. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 51087 of. the California Govern- ment Code, the City Clerk hereby is authorized and directed to record, or have recorded, saidOpenspace Easement Grant. Deeds in the Office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, and to file, or have filed, a copy thereof with the County Assessor of Santa Clara County. SECTION 4. The Counci! hereby finds that this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and dOeS not require an environmental ~SS~sme~t. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Fehrunry 27-, 1978 AYES: Brenner, Carey, Clay, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher, Wi~hzrspoon NOES : None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSEH.T : Eyerly ATTEST:APPROVED ~o; s~,~u~r~ ~’i ty -Clark Mayor APPROVED AS.TOFO~: City Attorney APPROVED: Ac$ing City Manager COI!,POI’~AT;ON OPIgNSPACIg EASIgI’IENT GIIANT DEE:D pLII~SUANT TO. CAbIFORNIA GOVERN~IgNT CODE SCCT~O.NS 51070-51087 AND CALIFORI~IA ]tEVENLIE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION 421(e) AND 422(d) Alia Hesa Improvement Company, aCalifornia corporation (Grantor), and t}le City of Pale Alto, a mtln[ci|,al corporation ..(Grantee)o RECITALS i. Grantor is the owner in fee of certain real property situa- ted in the City of Pale Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of Cali- fornia, more particularly described in PARCEL "A" attached hereto (the Property). 2. Oranior ind Grantee agree that the Property is characterized by natural scenic beauty, is essentially unimproved and is dgvoted to an open space use for the public health and safety as an area re- quired for the protection and enhancement of air quality. 3. Grantor desires by this grant to grant Grantee by gift a righh in the Property and by the terms of ~his grant to impose re- {frictions which, through limitation of’future use of the Property., will effectively~preserve for public enjoyment the scenic character of the Property, and Grantee desires to acquire such right as a gift. Now therefore as a gift without any consideration whatever given or received, Gra~tor hereby imposes on .the Property the restrictions l~ercinafter set forth (the Restrictions), and grants to Grantee the right in the event of any violation of any of the restrictions at Gvai~tcc’s option and without limiting the exercise of any other right oY remedy it ~ay have on account of which violation A. to enter the portion of the Property upon or as to which such violati6n exists and usi,lg such force for that purpose as may be ~ecessary, to the extent permitted by law, su~i~rily abate and remove any improvement, thing or condition that my be or exist thereon .contrary to the provisi6ns of this Grant and re- store the portion of the Property to the uses called for by this grant, all at the expense of the violator; and/or D. to prosecute a proceeding at la~ or in equity against the violator (or person or persons attempting to violate the Restrictions) to recover damages for any actual violation and to enjoin and remedy any threatened or actua! violation, i[ ~’ithin ninety (90) days after occurrence of~h_~ violation Grantee shall have requested Grantor by notice to take action or initiate proceedings to abate and remedy the violation and Grantor shall for sixty (60) days after such notice have failed or refused to do so. Tile RESTRICTIONS The Restrictions shall constitute a servitude upon "the Property and upon the use of the Property by Grantor. To that end and for. the ¯ .purpose 6f accomplishing the intent of the parties, Grantor does co- venant on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, with Grantee to do and refrain from doing severally and collectively upon the Property the various acts hereinafter mentioned for a period of ten (i0) years from January i, 1977, to use and permit the use of the Property only for the following purposes: i. Al! agricultural uses .(except the conducting and maintenance of hog farms). 2. All cemetery uses except mausoleums and columbariums. No structures sha!l be erected and no monument’s installed except head stones level with the surface of the lawn. Roadways and parking areas may be installed to provide access to graves. A dirt berm not to exceed five feet (5’) in height may be installed around a portion of the perimeter and an open mesh cyclone type fence complying with the City requirements may be installed. 3. Provided, however, that anything in.this Grant to the contrary notwithstanding no buildings, outbuildings, iliumination facilities, poles, signs and structures of any type or kind located above ground except those expressly described in the preceeding Paragraph 2 shall be placed on any portion of the Property during the period of the re- strictions unless the Palo Alto City Co~ncil shal! first have deter- mined after public hearin~ that such.improvements are a use comp~tib!e with the Restrictions as "compatible use" .is defined in California Government Code ~51201 (or in any similar statutes then in effect). RESERVATIONS Gra{~or in behalf of itself, its successors and assigns espe- cially reserves the following rights and privileges ~ith respect to the Property: I. The possession of, and all uses, occupancy, ingress and egress to, in and upon the Property not inconsistent with the Restrictions including the right ~o prohibit entry thereon by unauthorized persons. 2. The right to develop ~ater resources including drilling of ~ater wells and to lay, construct, repair and replace pipes_and con- duits for the transportation of water for an irrigation system. 3. Al! agricultural uses (except t~e conducting and maintenance 4. All cemetery uses except mausoleums and columbariums. 5. Tl,is Grant and the l(estrictions shall continue in full force -for a period of ten (I0) .years c0mmenping January l, 1978, and shall ]J~ automatically extended for one (i) additional year on January 1 of each year commencing with January i, 1979, unless notice of nonrenewe] is given in accordance with Government Code Sections 51090 through 51094. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS This Grant shall bind the successors and assigns of Grantor, shall constitute a servitude upon the Property and reservations shall inure to the benefit of the Grantor, its successors and assigns to the cxtc~t hereinabovc provided. Executed this /~ Z~ay of December , 1977o ALTA ~:ESA iMPROVEMENT-COMPANY STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ). ss On the~- ~_~day of Decembor, 1977,. before m~, ANDREW M. SPEARS, Notary Public, personally appeared A. A. PRIOR~ known to me to the President of the Corporation, ALTA MESA IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, that he executed the within instrument -and acknowl~dged to me that such Corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to a Resolution of its Board of Directors. IN WITNESS W}{EREOF, ! have hereunto ’set my hand and affixed my O[fici~ ~eal the day and ear first above written Andr4w M. Spears, N~tary Public State of California My Commission Expires: July i, 19"79 Accepted .by Resolution of the Palo Alto City Council on , 1978. City Cierk THE IIORTHWESTERLY PORTION OF ALTA IIEAS HEMOR]AL PARK PALO ALTO, CLAIFORI~IA COW,fENCING at the point of .intersection of the easteriy line of I|anuella Avenue as said Avenue is shown upon that certain map entitled "MAP OF THE PROPERTY OF THEALT.A HESA ]MPRDVEFI[NT COHPANY, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORL’IA", filed .August ¢, 1961 in File No. 2 of Cemetery l.~aps at. Page In, Santa Clara County Records, California, with northeasterly line of a 20-foot road and utility easement designated as Parcel l in and granted by Alta Hesa Improvement Company, a Corporation, to Harry VIilson Isaacs, et al, by that certain Agreement dated November IO, 1955 and recorded Hatch 28, 1956 in Book 3450 of Official Records at Page IBO, County Of Santa Clara County Records, said easement being commonly known as Hiranda Road; IHENCE THENCE THENCE THENCE THE~<CE THEI~CE along said easterly line of l~anuella Avenue N.O1°43’00’’ E. 174.97 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGIN~IING; along said easterly line of Manuella Avenue N. 01°43’00’’ E. 247.4~ feet to the point of intersection thereof with the southerly line of Ar~st~adero Road as established bythat certain Final Order of Condemnation entered . in the Sqperior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara, a certified copy of which.wAd, filed March 8, 1963 in Book 5935 of Official Records at Page 129, County of Santa Clara Records; along said southerly line of Arastradero Road ~I. 63°50’50’’ E. 232.11 feet; S. 26°O9’I0’’ E. 359.83 feet to the point of intersection thereof with ¯ the westerly prolongation of the n~~therly line of that certain map entitled, "SUBDIVISION N0. 5, CENTRAL SECTION, ALTA HESA 14E~IORIAL PARK, COUNTY OF SANTA.CLARA, CALIFORNIA"~ file~ February 4, 1976 .in Book 3 .- of Cemetery Maps at Page 73 County of Santa Clara Records; albng the most westerly l~ne and the northerly and southerly.prolongations thereof of said Subdivision No. 5, S. Ol°~3’O0’’ W. 276.00 feet to the point of intersection thereof with a westerly extension of the southerly line of that certain map entitled, "SUBDIVISION ~O.,l, CENTRAL SECTION, ALTA I~ESA MD~ORBAL PARK, COUNTY OF SAHTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA",.filed February 4, 1976 in Boo~ 3 of Cemetery #laps at Page 69, County of Santa Elara Records; S. 59°50’10" Vl. 249.70 feet to a point on a line which is parallel with and northeasterly 14.00 feet measured at right angles from aforesaid northeasterly line of Miranda Road; along last described line It. 30°09’50’’ \-~. 253.46 feet; northwesterly a]ong a tangent curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 60 feet thru a central angle of I~°50’07’’ for an arc distance of 15.5¢ feet to a point of compound curvature thru which a radial line of said curve thru l~st said point bears S. 74°~O’17’’ northerly along a curve concave easterly having a radius of ~80 feet thru a central angle of 17°0~’43’’ for an arc distance of I~2.~0 feet to the TRUE P01~IT OF BEGIIINING, containing 4.536 acres of land, more or less. JONESoTILLSON ~ ASSOCIr~TI.5 Attachment 13 AL.TA M~S~, IMF::~OVI~IV~F-NT I~OM~ANY August I___~.0,1993 Ms. June Fleming City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: Notice of Non Renewal of Parcel A Open Space Easement Dear Ms. F’lemingi Re[erence is hereby made to that certain Corporation Open Space Easement Grant Deed Pursuant To California Government Code Sections 51070-51087 And California Revenue And Taxation Code Section 421(e) And 422(d) ("Parcel A Open .Space Easement") dated December 13, 1977 by and between Aha Mesa Improvement Company ("Aha Mesa") and the City of Palo Alto ("City"). The Parcel A Open Space Easement was accepted by the City Council of the City by its Resolution No. 5521 dated February 27, 1978. The Parcel A Open Space Easement was recorded in the Official Records of Santa Clara County on February 28, 1978, at Book D ,493, Page 2,11. The real property encumbered by the Parcel A Open Space Easement is located in the State of California, County of Santa Clara, City of Palo Aho, is commonly referred to as "Parcel A", and is more particularly described in ~ attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. " "" Paragraph 5 of page 3 of the Parcel A Open Space Easement provides as follows: "This Grant and the Restrictions shall continue in full force for a period of Ion (10) years commencing January 1, 1978, and shall be automatically extended for one (1) additional year on January 1 of each year commencing with January 1, 1979, unless notice o[ non renewal is gi~’en in accordance with Government Code Sections 51090 through 51094." Further, section 51091 of the California Government Code provides that if a landowner desires in any year not torenew an open space easement, the landowner shall be entitled to do so by serving written notice of non renewal of the easement upon the other party at least ninety (90) days in advance of the annual renewal date of the open space easement. Aha Mesa is the owner of Parcel A. Alta Mesa desires not to renew the Parcel A Open Space Easement. Therefore, pursuant to Paragraph 5 or page 3 of the Parcel A Open Space Easement affd Section 51091 of the California Government Code, this letter shal! serve as written notice by Alta Mesa of non renewal of the Parcel A Open Space Easement¯ Pursuant to Section 51092 of the California. Government Code, .upon the giving by a landowner of a notice of non renewal, the open space easement remains in effect for the balance of the term of the open space easement remaining since the last renewal of the Parcel A Open Space Easement. The-last renewal of the ten (I0) year term of the Parcel A Open Space Easement was on January 1, 1993. By our calculations, the term of the P,’u’cel A Open Space Easement will expire at midnight, December 3 l, 2092. i~ls. June Fleming August 10, 1993 Page 2 Please feel free to contact the undersigned or J. Anthony Villanueva of L~kin Spears (415-328-7000), counsel for the undersigned, if you have any questions concerning the within. Very truly yours, ALTA MESA IMPROVEMENT COM.PANY ¯Warren E. Peters "" " its: Secretary EXHIBIT A " " OPEN SPACE EASEHENT PARCEL "A" TIIE I:OP, TH\.~ESTERLY PORTIOII OF ALTA IIEAS I.IE,HORIAL PARK PALO ALTO, CLAIFORNIA COI.~IENCING at the point of intersection of the easterly line of llanuella Avenue as said Avenue is shown upon that certain map entitled "flAP OF ~HE PROPERTY OF THE ALTA HESA ]NPP, OVE,~IENT COHPANY, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", filed August 4, 1961 in Fi.le No. 2 of Cemetery Flaps at Page IB, Santa Clara County Records, California, with northeasterly line of a 20-foot road and utility easement designated as Parcel 1 in and granted by Alia Hesa Improvement Company, a Corporation, to Harry ~ilson Isaacs, et al, by that certain Agreement dated Ibvember 10, 1955 and recorded Hatch 28, 1956 in Book 3~50 of Official Records at Page IBO,. County of Santa Clara County Records, said easement being com~nonly known as Hiranda Road; "~HENCE THENCE THENCE THENCE TH.HCE THEIiCE THEt~CE along said easterly line of l~anuella Avenue-N. 01°43’O0’’ E. 174.97 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEG]NiIING; along said easterly line of V, anuella Avenue II. 01°43’O0’’ E. 2~7.~ feet to the point of intersection thereof with the southerly line of Arastradero Road as established by that certain Final Order of Condemnation entered in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara, a cer.tified copy of which.was filed Harch B, 1963 in Book 5935 of Official Records at Page 129, County of Santa Clara Records; along said southerly line of Arastradero ROad II. 63°50’5D’’ E. 232.11 feet; S. 26°0g.’.lO"E. 359.83 feet to the point of intersection thereof with ¯ the westerly prolongation of the northerly line’of that certain map entitled, "SUBDIVISI0{~ NO. 5, CENTRAL SECTION, ALTA NESA {~,EHORIAL PARK, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA"-, file February , 1976 in Book 3 of Cemetery H.aps at Page 73 County of Santa CIBra Records; along the most ~esterly line and the northerly and southe’r.ly prolongations thereof of said Subdivision No. 5, S. 01°¢3’00’’ W. 276.00 feet to the .point .of intersection there0f-with a westerly extension of the southerly line of that certain r.ao entitled, "SUBDIVISION NO. I, CENTRAL SECTION, ALTA MESA HDIOR]AL PARK, COUNTY DF SAIITA CLARA, CALIFORNIA", filed Februar-y_4, 1976 in Book 3 of Cemetery flaps at Page 69, County of Santa Clara Records; S. 5g°50’I0’’ ~4. 249.?0 feet to a point on a line which is parallel ~ith and northeasterly l¢.D0 feet measured at right angles from aforesaid northeasterly line of Miranda Road; along last<~escribed line I~. 30°09’50’’ U. 253.~6 feet; northw~sterlz along a tangent curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 60 feet thru.a central angle of 14°50’07’’ for an arc distance of 15.5~ feet to a point of compound curvature thru whi(h a radial line of said curve thru last said point bears S. 7R~0’17" northerly along a curve concave easterly having a radius of 480 feet thru a centra~ angle of 17°02’43’’ for an arc distance of 142.80 feet to the TRUE POIIIT OF BEGIIINIIIG, containing ~.536 acres of land, more or less. JONES’TILLSON ~ ASSOCIATF.S Attachment E AL.TA MESA IMF:~ROVEMF-’NT r_,OM~AI~,’~ y 0~ PAL~ ALTO PALO ALTO, CALII::ORNI December 10, 1998 Ms. Kathi Hamilton City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re:A1ta Mesa Memor.i~1 Park, Open Space Easement Dear Ms. Hamilton: The purpose of this letter is to request that the Palo Alto CityCouncil ("Council") approve the use of above-ground headstones in an approximately one acre portion of A1ta Mesa Memorial Park Cemetery ("Cemetery") subject to an open space easement as a use that is compatible with the existing uses permitted within the Cemetery areas covered by the open space easement. -". BACKGROUND The Cemetery is a 72 acre cemetery located generally at the intersection of Arastradero Road and Footh~11 Expressway. 45 acres of the Cemeteryale developed; the remaining 27 acres are undeveloped. The Cemetery ~s the only cemetery in Palo Alto. It has been serving the Palo Alto community since 1904. On December 13, 197~, we granted to the C~ty of Palo Alto ("City") an open space easement ("Open Space Easement") over an Bpproximately 4.536 acre portion of the Cemetery ("Open Space Easement Area"). On February 27, 1978 by..Resolut~on Number 5521 the Council acceptedthe Open S~ace Easement. Attached for your convenience is a copy of.~he easement deed whereby the Open Space Easement was conveyed to the City ("Ope~-Space Easement Deed"). Concurrently with the grant of.the Open Space Easement, we also granted to the City, and the C~ty accepted, two additional open space easements, one encumbering Bn approximately 3.6 acre portion of the Cemetery and the other encumbering an approximately 4.717 acre portion of the Cemetery. In total, approximately 12.853 acres of the Cemetery are encumbered with open space easements. On August I0,-1993’, we gave notice of non-renewal of the Open Space Easement. As a result of such notice, the Open Space Easement as it affects 4.536 acres of the 03Tetery will expire on December 31, 2002. The Open Space Easement Deed restricts the uses which can be made of the Open Space Easement Area. Among those restrictions are a prohtb[t~on against the ~nstal]at[on of any headstones except those ~e~1 with the surface of the lawn. (See Paragraph 2 of "The Restrictions" port,on of the Open Space Easement Deed). Notwithstanding such restr[ct[on, the December I0, 1998 Ms. Kathi Hamilton, City Of Palo Alto Page 2 Open Space Easement Deed also provides that above-ground structures may be located on the Open Space Easement Area if the Council determines,after public hearing, that the existence of such above-ground structures ~s a use which is compatible with the Uses of the open space areas which are permitted by the Open Space Easement Deed. (See Paragraph 3 of "The Restrictions" portion of the Open Space Easement Deed).- Currently we are in the the process of developing a.5.8 acre portion of the Cemetery... Although 82% of our current development which is devoted to burial plots will conform to the flush-with-ground head~tones requirement of the Open Space Easement Deed, it has recently become apparent to us that a portion of the development will have to be devoted to burials plots which a11ow for above-ground headstones. We have earmarked an approximately one acre portion of the Open Space Easement Area for that purpose. That one acre portion is shown in the attached diagram. The above-ground headstones will have heights of 32 inches or less. Over the past 15 years we have experienced a significant increase in requests for burial sites which permit installation of above-ground headstones. This increase is attributable to changes in peoples’ tastesas will as to closer observance by our ethnically-diverse customer base of customs requiring monuments in honorof their deceased family and friends. Our current inventory of burial sites which permit above-ground headstones is .approximately 285 sites. We estimate that this inventory will be depleted in 3 years, well before %he expiration of the remaining 4 year term of the Open Space Easement. We need to replenish this inventory to meet customer demands. As the only cemetery in Palo Alto and as a long time member of the Palo Alto community, we feel that is is our obligation and responsibi1~ty to be able to provide the members of the Palo Alto community with the services and products they wish and deserve. COMPATIBLE USE As provided by the Open Space Easement Deed, the Council may approve the installation of above-ground headstones if it determines that the installation of headstones is a "compatible use" within the open space portions of the Cemetery. Under the Open Space Easement Deed, a use is a compatible use if you find it to be consistent with the existing open space uses of the land which is subject to the.Open Space Easement Deed. (See Paragraph 3 of "The Restrictions" portion of the Open Space Easement Deed). For the÷following reasons, we feel that the installation of abo#e-grouhd headstones in a one acre portion of the Open Space Easement Area is compatible w~th the existing open space uses and character of the Open Space Easement Area and the other Cemetery areas which are dedicated to open space. First, the one acre portion of the Open Space Easement Area which is intended to be devoted to above-ground headstones ~iII, with its extensive landscaping andplantings, continue the open space feel and character of the neighboring burial areas with flush-to-ground headstones. This is shown on the enclosed rendering. Second,.the 32 inch maximum height of permitted above-ground headstones will prevent any possibility that large monuments will be erected which will impact the open space feel and character of this portion of the Cemetery. December I0, 1998 Ms. Kathi Hamilton, City of Palo Alto Page 3 " Third, the area on which the above-ground headstones will be permitted is nominal. The one acre proposed to be devoted to above-ground headstones is only ~8% of the Open Space Easement Area and only 3.8% of the total.12.B53 acres which are suSject to open space easements in the Cemetery. Devoting such small percentages to above-ground headstones will not have any noticeable impact on the overwhelming majority of the remaining Cemetery open space lands which are subject to the flush-to ground headstone restriction. Fourth, the increasing demands of the c~mmunity which we serve for above-ground headstone burial sites require that the one acre be made available for such uses. Please at you earliest possible convenience have appropriate City staff ’inform us when our request will be heard by the Council. In the.meantime, if any City staff has any questions or wishes additional information conerning the above, we will be pleased to answer such questions and/or provide such additional information. --- Very truly yours, ALTA MESA IMPROVEMENT COMPANY Manager 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 May 26, 1999 REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM City Council Chambers Room Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 DRAFT EXCERPT ROLL CALL: Meeting called to order at 7:05 P.M. Commissioners: Owen Byrd, Chairman Kathy Schmidt, Vice-Chair Bern Beecham Annette Bialson - absent Phyllis Cassel ,Ion Schink Patrick Butt Staff: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Wynne Furth, Senior Asst. City Attorney PhiIlip Woods, Senior Planner Chairman Byrd: Now I would like to call this regular meeting of the Planni Commission for Wednesday, May 26, to order. I ask that the Clerk please roll. Five present. ORAL COMMUNICA T!ONS. Members of the public to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card. availabl the secretary of the Board. The Architectural Review Board reserves the limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. First item on our agenda is This is the portion of our agenda where members may speak to the Commission on a item that is not otheps, ise agen~tonight’s agenda. I have no cards for Oral Communications and seeing no us up on the offer, I will close that portion of the hearing. CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. A:PC526Min.reg Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 IAgenda Changes, Additions and Deletions for tonight,don’t believe we have.~y which moves us on to the i~pproval of minutes.~ APPROVAL OFMINUTES OFAPRIL 14, 1999:. ~~ The first set of minutes up for approval from our April 14 meeting/ MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt: I move approval of~ffiinutes of April 14. SECOND: Commissioner Cassel: Iwill second./ MOTION PASSED: Chairman B~rd: Is the~ discussion?. I will have to abstain ~end that hearing. All ~e in favor, those opposed, that passes on a 4-1 vote with one abstention and let the.,~ord show that Commissioner Beecham is now present. The second set ofminutes~re us is for the April 28 hearing. Is there a motion. ¯ / APPROVAL OF ~. OF APRIL 28: " MOTION: Commoner Schrnidt: I move approval of the minutes of April 28. ~~mmissioner Cassel: I will second it. MOT PASSED: Chairman Byrd: Is there any discussion? It has been moved and se~d.ed. All those in favor? (Ayes) Opposed? That passes on to 6-0 vote which brings ~ to the one punic hearing on our agenda tonight ¯ NEW BuSINESS. Public Hearings. It is an application by the Alta Mesa Improvement Company to amend an open space easement to allow above ground headstones in approximately one-acre portion of the Alta Mesa Memorial Park cemetery at 695 Arastradero. Would staff care to introduce this item? 1. 695 Arastradero Avenue: Application by Alta Mesa Improvement Company to amend an open space easement to allow above ground headstones in an approximately or~e acre portion of the Alta Mesa Memorial Park Cemetery. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared. File No. 99-EIA-10. Mr. Phillip Woods, Senior Planner: Good evening. This item is before the Planning Commission to recommend a proposal to amend an existing open space easement. The Planning Commission must determine that the proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan’s objectives, policies and programs. Staff recommendations is that the Planning Commission review and comment on the project and forward the recommendations to A:PC526Min.reg Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 City Council based upon the conditions of approval and the following findings. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy, the use of above ground headstones is a compatible use as defined in the Restrictions of the Open Space easement for Parcel A and a negative declaration with a finding that the project will not result in any significant environmental impact. The applicant for this project is Marilyn Talbot, the owner of the Alta Mesa Improvement Company. She has prepared a brief presentation for the Planning Commission tonight. Thank you. Chairman Byrd: Do we have any questions for Staff at this time. Seeing none I will open the Public Hearing and invite the applicant to speak first. Please state your name and address for the record and you have up to 15 minutes for your presentation. Marilyn Talbot, 695 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto: Good evening. I would like to say that Staffhas adequately state our position. I want to give you a little bit of background on this issue. In December 1977, the open space easement was granted by the City of Palo Alto with the restriction of above-ground monuments. We are here to ask for an amendment to that restriction. We are running out of inventory, we need additional inventory to satisfy the public’s need. In our current development, we have earmarked a nominal portion of the open space easement, 2.8 percent of the total 12.9 acres which are subject to open space easement agreement for monument. In the area being devoted to above ground monuments, in faith that the characteristics of the open space would be preserved and maintained for the reasons set forth in - the staff report. We have considered the conditions of the approval, we think they are fair and we are going to accept the conditions for our approval. Chairman Byrd: Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Schink: My understanding is that the granting of the easement allowed you to certain tax relief over a certain period of time. Could you give us some idea as to what this tax relief was in a dollar amount? Ms. Talbot: That amount in December of 1993 we served a notice of non-renewal and when Phillip Woods asked me about that, prior to serving notice, Alta Mesa has six parcels and this particular parcel that was yielding the tax for the tax year of 93-94 for the total figure of $135.34. When we served notice of non-renewal, after 10 years of graduating period before it picks up to what it should be. So it went from 135.34 for the y~.ar to its current tax which was December of 98 and April of 99 it being $2, 380.20 and every year, its gone up. Commissioner Schink: I am sorry, how much was that? Ms. Talbot: Two thousand three hundred and eighty dollars and twenty cents. So it went from 135 prior to serving notice of non-renewal to 2,380. Commissioner Schink: And what would the taxes be on one of your other parcels? A:PC526Min.reg Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Talbot: I did not bring that. I can tell you that our total tax for 72 acres, 45 being developed, runs about 43 to 45,000 dollars a year for all six parcels. One of the parcels primarily has all the buildings on it which has a heavier tax than last year. Commissioner Schink: Was there any reason other than tax relief that you would enter into the open space easement return? Ms. Talbot: Our problem arise when Alta Mesa, back in 1975, Through the City of Palo Alto we got a permit to put a chain link fence up. For many, many years we did not have a chain link fence enclose the property and we experienced new problems with people driving motorcycles on the property so we thought we needed to protect the property. Our undeveloped land is open and it just welcomes people thinking that it was just open, so we put up a chain link fence. When we put up the chain link fence it brought to everybody’s attention how narrow Miranda Road was and for homeowners got real concerned and we stopped putting up the chain link fence and stopped the whole process and we went into negotiations with the homeowners and the City on what could be done to rectify this problem and basically what happened was we, in exchange for the easement we gave the City 3 acres of land to widen Miranda Road starting at Arastradero Road to all the way down our property line so widening it, we would not have a narrow road anymore and not have to pay for the land and that was what was settled on. When we got this tax relief in exchange for three acres of land that is owned by the City. Commissioner Cassel: I have a related question to that. Who now maintains that area where you now have the berm and the meta! fence on Miranda Road? Who maintains that? On the Miranda side. Ms. Talbot: The City of Palo Alto does. Once the land was deeded to them, they landscaped it going down with two trees and some ground shrubs and the City maintains that for the property. An?~hing down the fence along Miranda, we maintain. Commissioner Schmidt: If this is granted, the ability to have the 32-inch high monuments on this acre, will that be available to you right now versus at the end of that transition period changing from open space to the 10-year transition period. Would that be available to you right now? Ms. Talbot: Monuments? Currently, when I initially wrote a letter back in December w~ had an inventory of 285 monument lots and currently we have about 253. The open space easement non-renewal expires December 3, 2002, three years, and we thought we would run out of monuments by the time that came about so that’s why we are asking for it. Commissioner Schmidt: Then you would be able to use that property and have monuments as soon as this is approved? A:PC526Min.reg Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Ms. Talbot: Correct. Commissioner Cassel: Why did you choose the comer of A.rastradero and Miranda to put the monuments on? Ms. Talbot: It is a concealed opposite of the other comer. We have the other comer right back. Our current monument area is we don’t open up the area to allow people to do whatever they want. Monument lot takes up more land to make more use of the monument so the opposite comer, we actually show that in some of the information I gave you, that shows you the opposite comer that has existing monuments fight now and its just developed and planned out. Between those two comers are all fiat out, fiat headstones. Commissioner Butt: I am trying to recall exactly which of the photos is the Arastradero view, I guess photos C. The open space aspect to your land does not appear to be very visible from that public viewpoint. Ms. Talbot: That is correct because of the berm and the end of the development. The road sits low and it goes back so yes, it is not visible at all. That is why we took those photographs just to give you an idea that from the road you cannot see. The opposite comer, there is development and has monuments but you cannot see the monuments from the road at all even at the top. Commissioner Burr: You can’t see the open space either. Ms. Talbot: Because of all the vegetation, yes. In lieu to develop that area, that was what the City wanted us to put in all that vegetation as a buffer and that is what you see, you can see the tree and the shrub. Commissioner Schink: Do you remember why the CitT did not want you to put up headstones or why they had the headstones restrictions when they first proposed the easement? Ms. Talbot: The only thing I could think of was back in December !977. We weren’t even offering monument lots for sale at that time. We thought offering that to the public it was going to be more of a memorial park which would see all flushed headstones and as time went on, and the ethnic diversity in the Bay Area, more and more people had waiiated that type of monument and back 15 years ago when it was the first time we started offering again and we have for several years, in our last heavy development, we equipped a certain amount of monuments in to appease the public because that is what they want. Commissioner Schink: Did you go back and read the minutes for the meetings or does anyone know? A:PC526Min.reg Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Talbot: I did not deal with any easements back in 1977 and a gentleman that did and he was somewhat pnTzled by the monument issue other than we weren’t offering them at that time and he didn’t think much about that it wasn’t in there, it wasn’t something that we weren’t going to be offering and not until 5 to 7 years later that we start offering monument so I can’t tell you. He does not know why we didnot put it in earlier. Commissioner Cassel: I think I have an idea and that will come later as to why that might be. I had another question. I went out to see the site and I walked the site, got halfway around with my dog and discovered that you don’t allow pets there. Why don’t you allow pets on leashes? Ms. Talbot: We don’t allow pets because its very upsetting to people who have their loved ones buried there to have an animal do something on the lot. They see it as their loved one is there and an animal does something on it, they are doing it on their loved one so that’s why we don’t allow it. It was something that we had to address. We had numerous complaints about it. Commissioner Cassel: Part of the reasons for allowing this was given as a business reason saying that we need to compete with other cemeteries in the area. How many other cemeteries are there in this Peninsula area. Ms. Talbot: To the south of us we have several in Santa Jose/Santa Clara county. Part of the largest one that competes with us is the Oak Hill Memorial Park Cemetery. I am sure that you are aware that the conglomerates have come pretty heavy into our industry and bought up a lot of funeral homes and cemeteries and they are highly sales oriented so usually it has never been a big issue to have per sea cemetery 20 miles south of us, or 20 miles north of us, we have also a certain radius but the problem with the conglomerates coming in is they are marketing this whole area so it has become a very competitive market, so we have got to the south and to the north we have San Mateo and the whole Colma area which have had several properties that have been approached by very heavily market in this area. Commissioner Schink: \Vhat impact would it have on you if the City disagree to extinguish the easement at this point? Would that be to your benefit because it seems to me that essentially what you are doing is you don’t want the control of an easement. Would there be a problem if the City just extinguish the easement at this point? M~. Talbot: I am not sure that is the total abandonment and we did look into an abandonment and that has a dramatic tax effect and penalties for abandonment and that is why we took the notice instead and took the 10-year. Commissioner Schink: What is the dramatic impact that it would have? Ms. Talbot: I think abandonment would have an immediate tax effect of the going rate of the property at that time. The)’ don’t consider Prop. 13 or any of that. I think it is A:PC526Min.reg Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 pretty heavy. We went to the Tax Assessor’s office to get some information on that but I just don’t have that with me. It was very costly to do that. They would say how much an acre of land is in Palo Alto and they would tax you at that rate to the abandonment. Commissioner Schink: Is that not where you will be in three years or is that not fight? Ms. Talbot: The research told us that if you serve notice of non-renewal than no, that does not happen. You don’t get that immediate effect and penalized for doing that. Commissioner Schink: I don’t quite understand what the penalty is, the penalty is that you would have to pay the current tax rate? Ms. Talbot: At the current value and the current value of what the property is going at right now where they wouldn’t take into consideration anything about the situation where we’ve owned the land since the 50s. Chairman Byrd: Perhaps the City Attorney could shed some light on this. Ms. Wyrme Furth, Senior Assistance City Attorney: I can’t tell you exactly how this is absolutely calculated for a pre Proposition-13 graveyard in Santa Clara County but I can tell you that if you shorten the contract rather than amortizing it out rather than serving a notice of non-renewal, you’re penalize. There is a financial penalty.which charges taxes backwards essentially to make up for the fact that you didn’t actually meet the original commitment. It is designed to make sure that it is not anybody’s business advantage to terminate these things early. So if they serve a notice of non-renewal they just come up gradually to the appropriate tax rate but if they move to terminate the contract, to aggregate it, than they get penalized, they get taxes collected from the previous years when they were subject to the open space easement, as well as forward. There is actually a penalty mechanism. Chairman Byrd: If it is something like the Williamson Act for agricultural conservation at 12.5% penalty for cancellation of the contract as opposed to a 10-year amortization over notice of non-renewal. I am guessing at the similarity. Ms. Furth: It is quite similar. Chairman Byrd: Other questions for the applicant?, Commissioner Burt: Yes, you mentioned that it is due to the ethnic diversity that is causing an increase for demand for monuments, is it at a higher expense for monument spaces than for flat? Ms. Talbot: Yes. A:PC526Min.reg Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Burr: Is it perhaps as much economic changes as ethnic ones that are driving this? Ms. Talbot: The reason why there is more money is because of the upkeep. Costlier to keep up monument grades for it but I don’t think so. We get a wide variety of people in Palo Alto, not necessarily the higher echelon of money. It is very diverse, A lot of it has to do with the going back to the way it used to be. Chairman Byrd: Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Thank you very much. Are there other questions for Staff~. Yes questions for Staff. Commissioner Schink: Can you think of how this applicant, what drain are they on our tax dollars? I know that they are not using the library too much. I am really struggling here as to these issues, I don’t see them really impacting our infrastructure a whole lot and they are not checking a lot of books but on the other hand it seems like a question of how to get around the tax rules so am I missing something? Are they using a lot of City services that they use a lot of that I can’t think of. Ms. Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator: I would think there’s a lot of road maintenance and things like that the people who come to visit the site derive a benefit from but I don’t think they are particularly draining on Police and Fire Services or other kinds of community services. Maybe some minor infrastructure, water to the site and things like that. Commissioner Cassel: The people who are noticed within the 300 feet of the site, those projects that we approved sometime back behind the site. Isn’t the Miranda Area Homeowners Association get notified of this? Mr. Woods: I am not quite sure about that but I do know that the 300-foot notice around this parcel were notified. Commissioner Cassel: Kight, but there is a large deep parcel in the back on which no one on it because they’re just building the houses now. Mr. Woods: I don’t know but we can check on that. Commissioner Schmidt: The question to that would .be noticing the people within 300 feet of this acre site or the entire cemetery? Mr. Woods: It is within 300 feet of Parcel A. Commissioner Schmidt: So that means the Miranda project is probably not within 300 feet of that. That is down the other end of the Cemetery, I believe. Commissioner Cassel: There is only a couple of people across the street, the school. A:PC526Min.reg Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Woods: I think there are several residences too. Commissioner Burt: We have this as a designated open spa.ce and the applicant can clarify that when a number of years the City had requested the kind of screening that exists today. My question has to do with if we have an open space but is not visible to the public, does it really serve the purpose of open space, should we be requesting this applicant to have as grade of screening as they do have, does that meet our objectives when we designate areas to open space? Ms. Grote: In looking back over the minutes from 1977 1 think the open space was envisioned to include greenery and to kind of have that general undeveloped look, kind of a natural look to it and so the vegetation was anticipated to be part of the aesthetic of open space. It doesn’t mean that you would have to have a clear view through it but rather that you are going to see greenery and landscaping so I would say that it seems to meet the intent of what was originally discussed. Commissioner Burr: I think Photo C, it seems more like a sense of a wall area. As opposed to a greenery that gave a sense of a transition to open space behind it. Has the staff looked at that aspect and do we have any opinions on whether we should be reconsidering the way in which this open space is going to be part of the community? Ms. Grote: At this point ~we have not done that kind of analysis. We have looked at the particular proposal in front of us which was to include headstones in what had previously been an area which didn’t include headstones but we didn’t look at the overall open space concept or characteristic in this particular case. That really wasn’t part of the proposal. Commissioner Butt: Are fences how high at this time? Mr. Woods: I don’t know offhand, perhaps the applicant might have that information. Ms. Talbot: Its wood that meets cinder block and has a wrought iron on the top and a little alcove that goes a little higher and it is solid and down Miranda, its only four feet high. Commissioner Schink: Maybe I could try to answer Pat’s question. I was on the Architectural Review Board when a number of those improvements were approved. It is r@ recollection that a lot of those improvements came about as a sort of negotiation between what some of the neighbors were looking for further down on Miranda. The Architectural Review Board were really tough and pushed hard for most of that screening and I think actually the cemetery really had a little bit more of an open concept in mind than it was, I felt that it was pushed in the direction and ended up more where it is that the City requested than maybe where they actually wanted to be. It was looked at very closely by a number of ARB members. A:PC526Min.reg Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 Chairman Byrd: Other questions for staffat this time? Seeing none at this time, could we close the public hearing ifI didn’t already and could we turn this side to the Commission for discussion. Who has an opening thought on where we should go. Commissioner Beecham: To me when I was looking at this, Ithink why not. Is there a reason not to do this? I think some of Pat’s questions talking about the berm and the fencing and how effective this open space and I think to me as one of its use is this is not effective of open space. We don’t, at this point, really know what the rationale was back in the 70s when it was set up and if Staff could find out before going to Council, it may help make sure you don’t miss something here. In absence of any rationale, to me, without any true loss of what I would consider open space, I see no reason but to go ahead and approve this. Commissioner Cassel: Following up on what Bern said, I think that the CitT’s already approved having the area developed with its roads, those roads in place, I drove on those today. They are already beginning to work to lay it out so that it would be a cemetery and it would have without disapproval the flat stones in it. Some of the concepts of open space, where you might see the natural vegetation, has already been approved otherwise so the natural vegetation that is now behind the screening that you see along the street will be gone anyway. That really is the only issue, do you want flatstones or do you want to allow the monument stones. In terms of the issue that was raised, in terms of why it was never allowed, I looked up our ordinance for the open space district, and cemeteries are allowed on the open space districts only with flat stones and not with the monument stones and that may have, I am not sure, something to do with the fact that consensus was then dedicated open space that first publicly popped up somewhere without anyone thinking about it. I like the idea of allowing the monument. I like the idea that the cemetery is offering a variety of options for a family to interpret their family members in different ways. The site is very nice. The berm actually provides more protection for the cemetery than it does for the community. I never had the feeling of why isn’t this open, coming down the road feeling that you could see all the way through to the stream, that it would be very nice but for the cemetery that actually provides protection from the noise that you get off the road. There is some privacy and quiet which is rather interesting. If no one else has any questions, I am prepared to make a motion. Commissioner Schink: I have a question for staff. If Phyllis is right and the ordinance doesn’t allow above ground headstone markers in the open space and that is the zoning here then isn’t a variance required? Chairman Byrd: The zoning is RE. Commissioner Schink: The zoning is RE but the Comprehensive Plan designation is open space? OK Commissioner Cassel: They are under the Williamson Act. Comprehensive Plan is open space and it is a controlled development. A:PC526Min.reg Page 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Furth: I understand that it is in fact that they are contract to the open space, they are not zoned for general plan for the open space. Commissioner Schink: They are contract to the open space but is zoned RE? Ms. Furth: Yes, but the question is in your opinion, is this compatible with Open Space usage in the City. Chairman Byrd: According to the staff report, its Comprehensive Plan designation is open space controlled development. However, it is zoning district is residential estate so the prohibition on monuments in the open space zone would not apply because this is not in that zone. Commissioner Schink: I am a little uncomfortable with some of this. I feel like we are splitting hairs and it is obvious there are differences in the Comprehensive Plan designation versus what is in the Zoning critics spells out what it should be but let me think about it. Commissioner Cassel: Let me try it out because I was struggling with it this afternoon and we read it because we have to come up with the fact that it was compatible and where it states that we can do this is in the Williamson Act. I drafted a possible motion, I used part of that portion rather than the other portion, what the staff was saying for reasons why because it indicated in the report that under the Williamson Act we can approve these headstones or something similar provided we thought we had a reasonable lead to do so and it seems to allow us to make this option possible. Commissioner Schmidt: I also visited the site today and I too was a little surprised to not think about how high the berm and the landscaping and so I felt I also came to the conclusion after going inside and going outside and driving down Miranda in addition that I think it does leave an appropriate feeling of open space. If that area were residential you would see a mass of roofs there or two-story buildings and I think with the landscaping there, with the orchard as you drive down Miranda you really do get a lot of feeling of open space from that area. I think that the Architectural Review Board, as Jon noted, wanted to have that separation in screening, I think that is appropriate. I think its appropriate for the use, for the exterior - its across the street from the high school, its close to residential areas, I think that it is good for uses for the cemetery and the adjacent use’g to have some of that screening. We might do it a little bit differently today but I still think that we would still want to create some kind of a visual separation there. I think the existing cemetery already has this kind of pattern of development, the monuments and the fiat markers and we are judging tonight whether this could be a compatible use to have a portion of it have the monuments. I think it is a compatible use given the existing cemetery separation from the rest of the neighborhood, given that the easement will expire within a couple of years. A:PC526Min.reg Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Commissioner Burt: Going back to the screening and whether it adequately serves the open space objectives, I don’t think it’s really valid to compare it to one and two-story homes because this is an open space area, the comparison should be to other open space and I also acknowledge and respect to the value in the screening that was originally intended and it serves a value today both for screening from the noise of Arastradero Road and other purposes. However, I wonder whether we should modify this screening. Does this open space area of our City really provide much at all of the sense of open space from the way that its visible to most of the public and is there a way in which a modification to the screening would retain most of the objectives that are being sought by the screening and yet give the public a greater sense of open space there. Without having studied in detail on that screening, my sense is that there should be some modification there, what was designed in the screening 15 years ago, maybe should be reconsidered somewhat today. Chairman Byrd: And the irony in that, is that the use of monument headstones would, at least in my view, create a very busy visual environment, that it probably needs to be more properly screened. I would prefer to see that screening reduced if it was just going to be the at grade headstones. That would give you a feeling if we are going to amend the easement to enable the above ground headstones, than I would probably favor keeping the screening to avoid that very busy jumble visual effect. Commissioner Burt: I agree with that irony. My question is that whether we can in essence do both. Can we screen the headstones and to some degree open up the gist of the open space. Commissioner Cassel: Have you visited the site? Commissioner Burt: In the past, not this week. Have you made observations from visiting the site? Commissioner Cassel: I have to, at least three times a week, on my way to work and sometimes when I come back. I don’t always come back that way. When you take the pile of dirt down that they are now beginning to take down, that’s directly across the street from Gunn High school, it will in fact, bring that side down. It didn’t seem real high from the roadside and it doesn’t seem high from the outside. The road goes up in that direction as she said it has a sort of mound effect. It stops high on that side and looks down. I have sort of the opposite feeling from Owen. I think that is an extremely bu~) comer, very complex transportation comer. These decisions have been made and reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and reviewed by them recently I believe. Am I not right, when they reviewed the changes thai were made to allow the roads and the ceiling. The ARB just had a chance to review the ceiling recently. I suppose I could see the two-story house and much of that two-story house is just beyond it so the berm is not that high. A:PC526Min.reg Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Schink: Well, l am coming at this application from a completely different place and that is a rather simple in my mind. This is a cemetery, I am not confusing it with open space or anything else in my mind. It may be my view here is rather cynical but it seems to me that this application is simply the applicant’s desire to make more use of the property at this point than the agreement that they entered into that gave them a significant tax benefit. It is purely an economic question in my mind and the question to us is one of fairness. Do they really use anything in the City that we should be taxing them for? On one side and the other side is shouldn’t they be paying their fair share of taxes if they want to put this property into service. I mean some of us are paying huge post Prop. 13 taxes and we feel like carrying disproportionate share of the burden in this community and wonder why we should allow them to escape and frankly after hearing all thb information, I think that the decision that they want to make is one of an economic decision. There is a business opportunity here where it wasn’t anticipated 10 years ago. If racy want to take advantage of that business opportunity and they are hoping to do so at a reduced tax rate. I don’t think they deserve a reduced tax rate, I think the proper place for them robe is to come in and request the City abandon the easement and they can live with the consequence just as if someone wanted to come forward and take a piece of property out of the Williamson Act which we see often done and they should take the same approach and that is how I see this application handled. Chairman Byrd: Does anyone want to try a motion? Commissioner Cassel: I will try a motion. It won’t agree with Jon’s approach. I thought we should agree to staff’s recommendations and as I went through the findings, I just sort of added some words to it to make it, I think a slightly different emphasis or explain where I thought I was coming from. So under the findings, I thought it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the headstones would be allowed if it was an RE zone, i-.e.it is in a controlled development designation within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It manages existing open space for private use, that allows a natural habitat protection of public safety and v,4ll not impact recreation needs and that above-ground headstones will provide the same normal impact in the natural environment as flush headstone and that the headstones will not be visible from the street. Public safety will continue to be met, planning and public safety that relates to proper burial of remains and the above-ground headstones will impact in that effect and will allow proper pedestrian movement which wilt still not in any way effect pedestrian movement in that area or transportation. That it allows passive recreation such as walking, and that will not be impeded by the stones. Let me go on so I can explain what the passive recreation is. Niainber two finding where the use of the above ground headstones is a compatible use as defined in the Restrictions of the Open Space Easement for Parcel A, its compatible is defined in the Restrictions of the Open Space Easement, i.e. in the Williamson Act, Section 51231 or Section 51238 as per the finding Number 1 for the same reason and to the Negative Declaration for the finding that ,,,,’ill not result in any significant environmental impact, condition for above-ground stones versus flatstones which as far as I can see is the only real issue here, will not increase in any significant way that will impact to the environment. A:PC526Min.reg Page 13 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Chairman Byrd: Is there a second? Commissioner Schmidt: I’ll second that. Chairman Byrd: Would you like to speak further to your motion? Commissioner Cassel: Well, I think I have spoken to most of it but passive recreation is - I am not accustomed to private cemeteries where people can’t come in before 7:30 in the morning and I have done a lot of passive recreation in cemeteries so this is some open space characteristics for me. Its a lovely walking area and many cemeteries, over time, long term become a very important and special places for people who walk and to exercise. Although this tends to have a fence around it, it also backs up to the Adobe Creek and it is quite open on that side so that I thought that it had passive recreation use which is another use of the Open Space otherwise I think I have explained everything. Commissioner Schmidt: I think this is an appropriate and compatible use. Commissioner Beecham: Well, my say on this is that this whole issue in the 70s is probably a simple matter of convenience. I expect that the Cemetery found that they could save taxes and offer some apparent developable estates to the City, the City said fine, lets do it to tax anyway but I would like that confirmed for the Council before it goes to them, to make sure that there is not something missing there. I see no reason not to let this go but I am intrigued by :Ion’s comment about the option of abandoning the easement and therefore according a bit more tax and knowing nothing more about that at this time, I can’t support it, but I would like more information for the Council when it comes up to them. Commissioner Schink: I’ll vote against the motion for the reasons I stated earlier. Commissioner Burr: I am inclined to vote against the motion primarily for the reasons that Jon stated and that also for concerns whether it adequately is serving the open space definition. Chairman Byrd: Jon, is your position, your understanding that when the non-renewal of the easement becomes effective in 2003, that they will then not be burdened by the restrictions against headstones, then they will be able to pursue that business at that time if they so choose? Commissioner Schink: If they want to wait three more years than there is a whole set of rules, is my understanding. I think we have some inconsistencies that we probably should be looking at between what the Comprehensive Plan designation is and what some has directed but that is not the issue before us. I think if they want to advance their timetable by three years then they have to pay the fine for that. A:PC526Min.reg Page 14 ’1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Chairman Byrd: Then I too will not be supporting the motion. I think that my understanding of the easement’s mechanics is consistent with Jon’s and I think that soon enough the applicant will have the opportunity to pursue this.business use of this business property and if they want to pursue it more quickly they can Certainly abandon the easement or terminate the easement and pay in effect the penalty for that decision if it makes economic sense. Seeing no other comments we will vote on the motion in front of us. All those in favor (Ayes), all those opposed (Nos). We have a three to three which I. believe under Planning Commission rule, means that the motion does not carry. Bern dO you have a question? Commissioner Beecham: Well, since I am in favor more of finding out information on Jon’s concept, if he were to make a motion supporting that, I would support that motion as it goes to Council. MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend that the appropriate course of action in this application would be for the City to consider abandoning the easement as opposed to redefining above-ground headstones as a compatible use. Chairman Byrd: Is there a second? SECOND: Commissioner Beecham: So moved. Commissioner Burr: Second. Chairman Byrd: You want to speak to your motion? Commissioner Schink: I think that the important point is if they want to take advantage of the business opportunity here which sounds like a significant oppommity, there is a price to pay and that is a slightly higher tax rate. This is a decision that we all make, some of us have to move from one house to another and suddenly suffer a new tax increase but it is what you have to do, maybe the family changes or some other changes. I don’t think they get a free pass in the circumstances, except to say they don’t burden our taxes, they don’t burden our infrastructure greatly, still the tax rule is a tax rule so I just don’t feel comfortable giving them a break in this and that is what I think it is. I hope my motion addresses another alternative for them to pursue their business. Cl’i~irman Byrd: Staff, comment? Ms. Furth: So that would be a suggestion to the Council that the appropriate remedy would be a cancellation of their contract and easement benefits rather than the City gave up its rights on the easement. A:PC526Min.reg Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8~ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chairman Byrd: Rather than modifying the easement to meet the applicantDs need, the City would in turn offer, if the applicant is interested, to terminate or abandon the easement outright to remove the burden from restricting them above ground headstones. Ms. Furth: I regret that I am not more familiar with this pariicular use of Williamson Act standards and Open Space easement covenants in which the agreement is that you won’t put headstones on and the request is that you will put headstones on but what I am not clear on is that there are mechanisms that more familiar with where you can either serve your 1 O-year notice, wear out your time, go on about your business which is what this easement provided for or under some of these acts you can say I want to terminate the contract earlier and incur a financial penalty. Is that what you are suggesting is the appropriate alternative? Commissioner Schink: I am suggesting if that is an option, which I don’t know if it is or not, if there is a Williamson-Act type of termination, that is the direction they should take. If there isn’t I would then suggest that the appropriate approach for the City is to then enter into negotiating abandoning the easement. Chairman B~’rd: Because I don’t believe this property is burdened by a Williamson Act contract even though we are reasoning byanalogy from a notion of compatible use, there isn’t the same 12.5% penalty applied here for termination of a contract because there is no contract to terminate. The step or basis that would be imposed by the assessor on the propert-y owner would result in the reevaluation that would increase the tax rate so that in effect would be the impact. Commissioner Schink: I think we are seeing the same thing, I hope. Commissioner Cassel: In the staff report, it quotes from the Williamson Act, does that not mean that this is not on the subject property or is it? Ms. Furth: You would think it does, but it doesn’t. We have the document here and there is a separate act, the Open Easement Act of 1974, and what the City seems to have done at that time is to incorporate a Williamson Act condition into a 1974 Open Space Easement, and what they said was, that they would restrict the use of this land and typically they would not permit the use of above-ground monument, and they said that the property owner couldn’t put any other kind of building, light, pole signs or structures above the ground except those expressly allowed which was flat, I suppose a dirt berm n6t to exceed 5 feet and the flat headstones, those were allowed and an open-mesh chain- link fence and nothing else could be allowed unless the Palo Alto City Council fu’st determines after a public hearing that the proposed improvement are a use compatible with the restrictions, meaning flat headstones, as defined in California Government Code Section 51201, so they went back to the Williamson Act compatible use standards, which were more accustomed to using, when you have a large ranch building, and the question is, is a theater compatible with ranching and the answer is usually no but a large silo would be. This is not an easy question for us. A:PC526Min.reg Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Butt: Wynne, did I hear you say, as you were going through that history, that the requirement would be to change from flat stones to above-ground headstones would be compatible with flat stones? Ms. Furth: What it says is that a new use has to be compatible with the restricted uses and the restricted uses are all cemetery uses except mausoleums and columbariums and no structure shall be erected and no monuments installed except for headstones level with the surface of the lawn. Commissioner Burt: Well then, I don’t see how above-ground headstones could be passed. It just seems pretty clear in that language. Chairman Byrd: We’ve already voted on the applicant’s submission. Commissioner Butt: Good enough, this is just a clarification that didn’t exist when we voted. Chairman Byrd: So we have a motion in from of us to urge the Council to consider when this application goes forward to consider an alternative approach which would be abandonment of the easement which would have the economic effect on the property owner of stepping up their bases so that they would enjoy a special benefit by modification of the easement under the existing amortization 3-year prior to its termination. Ms. Furth: I think that we probably weren’t as clear as we might have been probably because of the complicated situation bu~ you have identified the two significant issues. One is if their proposal is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and that is where they really need direction from the Planning Commission, and you are charged with giving them advice on that subject, there is a second issue for the City Council, which is whether it is appropriate to grant the request of the relief from the easement. Commissioner Cassel: I would like to make a comment. Usually, and we are working on this based on the information, that if they have to abandon their, not using.the abandonment procedure, my understanding is that they not only have to pay back taxes but they have to pay a back penalty fee for doing so. If that is the case, that certainly- seems punitive for a manner of three years. What you are really saying is its OK to go ahead and do those headstones just be sure to pay the extra fees and taxeK Many times, the City run cemeteries, like schools, its pretty basic fees for the community. Chairman Byrd: Staff, I think, has rightly asked us for feedback for the Council on whether or not we believe that the above-grade headstones use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan at this point, in case Council goes in a different direction and chooses to approve the application. We have spoken mainly to the second condition. Does anyone want to briefly speak to the Comp. Plan issue? A:PC526Min.reg Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Commissioner Schink: Well, I hope I have my facts right, as I understand it, our Zoning, Open Space zoning designation does not allow for above-grade headstones and if our Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is open space, at this time I feel most comfortable in believing that we have conducted the arguments and made the right decisions in having the zoning which is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan thinking so that if we have a Comprehensive Plan designation of Open Space we should first rely on whether zoning is Open Space. Chairman Byrd: Except for the rest of the property is al! under the Open Space Comp. Plan designation and it includes the above-ground headstones. Commissioner Butt: Owen, have those headstones been erected since it was designated as Open Space? Commissioner Schink: It is zoned RE, so its mixed, so how do you say its consistent with the Comprehensive Plan when the Comprehens!ve Plan subsequent zoning presets that you don’t have above-grade headstones. Commissioner Cassel: Its zoned RE, it just doesn’t have an agreement on it to be Open Space.. It isn’t zoned. Commissioner Schink: The question isn’t is it consistent with the zoning. The question is whether it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Beecham: I think we are calling this way too fine. This is a cemetery, its got headstones out there, if those headstones were incompatible it shouldn’t have been there, nobody has ever complained, in this case its not effective Open Space, the zoning is not Open Space, the map does not say it is, I suspect that it is not a convenience, it never was for tax purposes for the cemetery and the fact gpes, its significantly muddled. So we need to take a rational approach to it and again I think Jon’s approach is rational enough based on what we know at this point. MOTION PASSED: Chairman Byrd: We have a motion and a second in front of us. Is there any further discussion on this motion. Seeing none, all those in favor (Ayes), all those opposed (Nos). So the motion carries 4-2 and when v’ill this item go to Council? Mi? Woods: It is scheduled for June 21. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. Chairman Byrd: Moving on on our agenda tonight, we have no other public hearings but we have a little bit of housekeeping, well, just to make sure we don’t have reports A:PC526Min.reg Page 18