Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Summit Land Conservancy proposes conservation sanctuary and natural burial on Oakley city land; council asks for legal review
Summary
Summit Land Conservancy proposed using roughly 20 acres of city‑owned land near Pinion Lane as a conservation sanctuary with an adjacent natural (green) burial area; council members asked staff to obtain attorney feedback and take the proposal under advisement before any formal action.
Representatives from Summit Land Conservancy presented a proposal to develop a conservation sanctuary and natural burial (conservation cemetery) on city‑owned land near Pinion Lane. Cheryl Fox, the Conservancy's CEO, said the plan would protect watershed and open space, create public trails and provide a natural burial option that uses GPS mapping instead of conventional headstones. The Conservancy proposed managing stewardship and operations and suggested a revenue split in which the city would receive a share of burial proceeds while the Conservancy would take an active management role.
Fox said the Conservancy has worked with the city on prior projects and described conservation burials as an environmentally preferable alternative to embalming and vaults; Shana Starks (funeral service owner) described conservation burial practices and cost savings compared with conventional burial. The presenters described a resident discount in the draft pricing model and suggested the city might receive roughly 60% of sales revenue under the proposal; they also discussed options for presales, memorialization (a names wall rather than headstones), and a GPS‑based mapping system for graves.
Council members asked about scale, who would pay for ongoing maintenance, whether the city would assume public‑works responsibilities, and how resident discounts would be enforced if purchasers later moved away. Cheryl Fox said the Conservancy would carry out active stewardship for the burial area and proposed a different management structure than other city conservation easements to avoid an ongoing drain on city staff. Several council members emphasized the need for attorney review before any agreement is finalized; staff agreed to circulate the proposal to the city attorney and return the topic for council consideration once legal feedback and specifics on terms are available.
No formal council vote was taken; the council accepted the presentation and directed staff to obtain legal review and return the item for action at a later meeting.
Next steps: staff to forward legal questions to the Conservancy and return a refined proposal to council following legal review.
