Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Bill 5.BPart2 10/04/2010
~ ~ d. I ~l~' i . ""~ i u al P I ~rl~ IIII ~~ I. II" ~', ~ ~ ~.. ,r I ~ ~ ~ ..n d.; ,. ~ ~ .. ~ _ ~. ~ ~ , ~ ~ 4 y...+~~• 1 ~~ ; EXECZJ'I`IV~E'SIJIVI1VdARX ~ ,~~,. ., Location: ~. , T(ie Roblar.Ranch isaocated''in wes"t Petaluma, approximately'/, mile east ~;~II,:., "~~,i ~~ ~ o_f the Roblar Road and Petaluma-Valley Ford Road intersecfion. ~. 8itus Addressi .7175. Roblar Road Petaluma, California, 94952. . ~~ ,, ~ . ~ ~ ,Assessor's Parcel Nos.; - 027-21..0-002, 027-200-002,. and 027-080'-007. : ,,~ ~~ ~~ ~';~'~ ~ size: 95-5..59 acres. - ' °" '' Access': Tlie subject ranch has extensive' frontage on Roblar Road, which provided ~I ~' L convenient-ingress/egress to'the; ranch. I ~.i~ Owner: I John Elmer Scott;and Anna Scott, his. wife, as co=trustee under that .certain n. I` Ij,,,ll~ declaration of trust, executed December 7, 1976: . ~'`I',I~~ . ~ ~. ' Appraisal Development: Complete Appraisal. „~ Appraisal Reporting: Summary Report. .., Zoning,; . Land Extensive Agriculture;,-.160-acre density, Second Unit Exclusion. °°"i~"° ~~~ ~ DateotlApprai a1: February 12, 200.1. Date of;Value: - February 5, 2001. ' la.q Date of'Inspection: February 5, 2001. ,~ Estimated Marketing Time: We have estimated a,six to twelve month marketing time. ''°' Present'Use: 1Zesidential uses and beef cattle grazing: ~'~~~~~~~ r, Rights Appraised: Fee'simple interest: Value:Indication: ,, Market, Value; "As Is" $4,300,000. Ha,~f _ ,,., ,..~,~ ~~ ,~ Value, , of Conservation Easement: $1,620,000 `` a .~ , 42 Pnge ,~ INTRODUCTION PROPERTY DESCRIP`]I'ION- ° ~ " The Roblar Ranch consists of three Sonoma County' Assessor.'s Parcels that contai"n a total of 95S.S9:acres. The ranch is located in a rural area of west Petaluma, approximately ''%~ mile east of the :Ro61ar' Road and Petaluma-Valley Ford Road intersection,. [improvements-on the ranch include a residence, a cottage, and " some older agricultural structures. of various :age, condition aiid construction quality: ,Under die prroposed • _ • agreement with the property owner, the District wi_II purchase three (3) of the ranche's five (5) potential development rights, plus. a .conservation. easement on a 767.85 acre •portion of the ranch. ;A (87":74 acre . portion of the Robiar Ranch wi ll ,not be restricted' by 'an easement;, as a portion of the 187:74 acres `is witliim the Aggregate Resources Management. (ARM) Plan. 'Per i~stnictia.ns from the District;., the value of the. subject improvements were i~ot considered i'm~tlie appraisal,, as' these is no change 'in the value o. f the improvements in the. "before"and "after" condition. OBdEC°TIVE OF AP.RRAISAL w The, purpose of`the appraisaC is to provide our opinion of the market value, as defined in this. report, .of the. fee simple i~~[erest.in the property. The function of the repo~C is to assist .in making decisio~is regarding the: proposed .easement. This is.a Complete Appraisal presented; as a~Self-Contained A'ppraisal:Report: SCOPE OF 'I'I~E A'PPiRAISAL The "Scope" requirem_ ent is .found ,in the Uniform Standards-of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP)~as established by the Appraisal Standards Board' of the Appraisal Foundation. Standards _Rule 2-2 (b) (vii) requires that the=extent of the process,of collecting, confirming; and reporting data be summarized, since the e:rteiit of the; process may not lie apparent to the reader in tle,contents of the report. Describing-,this Helps the client to understand the process the appraserused to arrive at his. opinion of value. !n making this appraisal, the ,appraisers have., inspected the subject ranch and its environs. The appraisers have investigated the social, economic, polifical, and physical, aspects of the subject. and the neighborhood in order to arrive at "an opinion of 1-ugliest and 'Best Use for the subject property.. In, this assignment, we have considered the current zoning and the existing General Plan,. together with the reasonableness of a zoning or General Plan :change. - Having-thus,.ascertained the Highest and'Best:Use, we:have then searched~the market for sales aiid listing of reasonably similar properties that have;,eitheP"sold or :are" avai9abie for sale. Data.. includes sales of vacant. land and improved sales. Sources used. in our search include, but are not; limited to> Assessor `Transfer i Journal or l=iche;:Iviultiple Listing records; 'Realtors;.other appraisers and' the appraiser's. own fides,.. Data ' ;has been verified.with one of the,parfies to the #cansaction -. sellers, buyers, or, theiragents. Roblar Ranclr, 71.75 Roblar'Rorr~l, Pelrrlunra Pnge 4 43 i . '' .. „- •This data is analyzed and adjustments made for'the sales differences;to the subject property. Where the sale is inferior to the subject,~a.plus adjustment is'made., [fthe sale is superior to the subject, a minus adjustment ., is made. Through this process. of adjustments to the sales, we arrive at an indicated value for the subject property from each sale comparable: 'This' data is reconciled into a final, opinion of value which is conveyed to the client in a written report that sets forth the data, analysis, and conclusions. The appraiser has not personally verified akl of the data utilized in this report. Information and data contained in the report were • ! obtained from sources considered to be reliable and believed to be true and correct. I; DATE OF APPRAISAL Tl~e effective date of the appraisal report is February 12, 2001. DATE OF INSPECTION AND VALUE The subject ranch was last inspected by Mr. William Gcoverman on February 5, 2001. COMPETENCY Mr. William Groverman is currently certified by the State of California as a Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Certificate Number AG025683. Mr. Groverman has appraised numerous ranches in Sonoma and Maria Counties and no steps to competency are required. INTENDED USERS OF REPORT The intended user of this report is the Sonoma County Agriculture Preservation & Open Space District (SCAPOSD}. No other person or entity may use this report without tl~e written authorization of °~ Redwood Empire Appraisal. OWNERSHIP AND HISTORY Or THE PROPERTY Title, to the subject ranch has been held in excess of five years in the name of John Elmer Scott and Anna Scott,. his wife, as co-trustee under that certain declaration of trust, executed December 7, 1976. No listings, options; 'or'sales`of th'e subject"ranch are known to the appraiser over the past five years. Rohlnr Rrruch, 7175 Robinr Roarl,.Pefnhrma Page 5 44 LCGAL DATA Situs Address: 7175 Roblar Road, Petaluma, California, 94952. Owner: John Elmer Scott and Anna Scott, his wife, as co-trustee undertha..t certain declaration of trust, executed December 7, 1976. Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 027-210-002, 027-200-002, and 027-080-007. Assessed Values 2000/2001: 027-2 i 0-002 $92,006 027-20'0-.002 2 ! 0,575 027-080-007 63,049 . Total Assessed Value $365,630 Real Cstate Taxes (2000/01): The basic tax rate is $1.00 per one hundred dollars of assessed. value. Voter approved bonds and service district fees are added .to. this amount. Tl,ie tax rate .for the subject ranch is $1:006' per one hundred dollars of assessed value, plus direct charges totaling. $390.00. The total 2000/2001 real estate taxes for the subject parcels are $4,068.20. Zoning: Land Extensive Aericulture (LEA) 160-acre density Purpose; fo enhance and' protect lands_ best' suited for. permanent " agricultural use and capable of relatively low production per .acre of" land. Second Unit Exclusion (Z) Purpose: to"provi'de for the exclusion of second units. The subject currently conforms to the requirements of its" zoning designation. Givenahe surrounding land uses and trends in. this area, it is unlikely .that, the current: zoning designation will change" within the near future. A.copy of the subject's zoning is included'in the addenda. Seismic Hazards: The subject ranch, is not located'in an Alquist-Priolo seismic hazard zone. Flood .Zone: .Based on a Flood Insurance .Rate Map (FIRM), the subject is not located within a flood zone. Flood Insurance Rate Community Panel Numbers 060375-835 & -840 Map Revsed:Apr•il 2, 1991. Zone X: Areas determined to be outside 500=year.flood plain. Legal Description: A copy of the subject legal description is included iri the addenda section of this report. Conservation Contract: In 1965 the Legislature passed the California Land Conservation Contract, also known as the Williamson: Act. The Act allows 9ocal governments to assess agricultural land owners based upon the iiicoine-producing value of their property; rather than the "highest and best use value'-'.. The Legislature intended 'that the Act help .farmers ~y Providing property tai relief, and by discouraging the unnecessary and premature conversion of Robinr Ranclr, 7175 Roblrrr Roarl, Pe~alunra Page 12 45 agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. The contract renews annually fora:minimum of ten ycars•util 5 notice of non-renewal is issued. At the time of notice of non-renewal the.conservation contract is phased out over a ten year period. Most recently, on August 24, 1998, the Act was amended to< allow existing. participants to place their land under new contracts, designating the property as a "Farmland Security Zone". This new contract shall renew annually for a t<yenty year term, and the property ~~''~ owner would then enjoy an additional 35a a discount in assessed value, from the previous Ag Preserve tax burden. Tliis extension, however, is entirely voluntary on the part of the County, and not all properties currently under Ag Preserve contracts may be eligible for designation as a . "Farmland Security Zone". The subject ranch is encumbered by an Ag. Type 2, 10-year Williamson Act Contract. Conservation Easement: T,he proposed conservation easement will limit the encumbered portion of the Roblar Ranch to one development right. Based on current zoning, the unencumbered portion of the subject ranch will have one potential development right. Tl~e District I~as.requested a value of the subject property as if a 767.85 acre portion of the property is restricted by an Unliniitecl,Agricullure conservation easement, and the balance of the ranch, 187.74 acres, is not restricted by an easement. Uses permitted under the proposed easement include all agricultural uses in accordance with sound, generally accepted agricultural and soil conservation practices, provided however that any permanent crop plantings may not occur in any "Natural Areas". Tlie "Natural Areas", as delineated on the site map at the end of this section, consists primarily of steeply sloped areas that are densely covered with brush and trees. These areas provide shade .for livestock aid leave limited agricultural utility. A DRAFT copy of the proposed easement, dated September 5,~ 2000, which lists the permitted and prohibited uses is included in the addenda Preliminary Title Report: A preliminary.title report from North American Title Company, Inc., dated August 13, 1999, No. 622175.39,, was provided to the appraiser. The . preliminary title report indicates several easements, which are typical of agricultural properties. The value conclusion indicated~in the appraisal is predicated on the assumption that the easements and encumbrances on the subject ranch do not negatively impact or impair the use of the property. THE CLIENT AND ALL READERS OF THIS REPORT SHOULD • SATISFY THEIVISELVES AS TO THE SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE EXCEPTIONS IN THE TITLE REPORT. Thomas Brothers Map: The subject ranch is located in Thomas Brothers .Map Coordinate H-7, Page 421, reference Sonoma County Streel Guide & Directory, 2000. Robinr Rnnch, 7175 Robinr Rond. Pelntrunn Page 13 46 SIT1J DCSCRIPTION Parcel Size: 027=210-002, 292.15 acres 027 200-002 5'14.70 acres 027-080-007 148.74: acres Total 955.59 acres Source: Sonoma County' APN Map. Access: The Roblar Ranch has. extensive ::frontage. on, Roblar Road, atwo-lane, asphalt paved county road. Additional access to the ranch is via a 50 foot wide easement off.Roblar Road tlirough a 50.06 .acre. parcel that is owned by the County of Sonoma. Topography: .The subject property !is an irregular slape ranch that .is primarily open, moderate to steep sloping, terrain that is well suited for livestock grazing. The.appra,iser estimates less than,ten,percent of the'.ranch is brush and tree covered. The front portion of'the ranch is mostly gentle sloping terrain at about 100 ,feet elevation, .rising to the easterly property line at 620 feet • elevation, and 482 feet elevation at the southwesterly property Fine.. Americano Creek runs .parallel with Roblar Road, a portion of the creek is located on the subject ranch. Two major canyon drain water towards Roblar Road and into Americano Creek, which runs to the west into Estero Americano and then.the'Paeific Ocean. Utilities: Electricity is supplied; to the ranch by .Pacific Gas & .Electric Company, telephone service is supplied by Pacific Bell, water is from several dams, ponds and springs, •and septic systems are used for sewage disposal The ` ponds are scattered .throughout the~~ranch, and ace used for primarily for . livestock water. Periodic repairs and maintenance is necessary to ensure that the dams and_ ponds do not fill with silt. The value levels indicated in this report assumes the water supply and septic systems are functional, and adequately meet the current:needsofthe ranch. Soil Condition: The soil information included in this report is based on a Soi/ Survey of Sonoran Cnu~~ty; Caljornin, completed by the United .States .Department of Agriculture Soil. Conservation Service, in cooperation with the .United. States Forest Service and University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, dated May 1972. Thee Survey rates the soils according to Capability Class and Storie Index, which generalize .the suitability of the soils for most crops. The soils are grouped by Roman Numerals from (to VI[I, according to their limitations. The numerals indicate progressively greater limitations and narravver choices for' practical use. ~ The sub=classification (e) defines the main limitation as the risk: of erosion. The sub-classification (w) shows that water in or on the soil ;interferes. with plant growth or cultivation. The sub- classification (s) sliows that the soil `is limited due to shallow; droughty, or stony conditions. Storie fndex ratings consider four general factors, including 'texture, slope, soil characteristics; and other factors or limitations. Each soil is evaluated on the basis of 100 percent with I00 Roblar Rnrtc/r, 7175 Xobinr.Rund, Pelalruna Prige 17 47 ~, being ideal. Specific soil types found on the subject property are categorized, and summarized in the table. Symbol Soil.Descripliorr Crrpnbilily Uiril Slorie Index CeB ClearLakeclay, 2`to 5 percent slopes [le-5 41 LoF2 Los Osos clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded Vle-3 14 L'sE2 Los Osos clay loam, thin solum, 30 to 50 percent slopes VIe-3 I ] SbD Sebastopol sandy loam, 9 to I5, percent slopes [Ve-1 62 SnD Steinbeck loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes. I Ve- I 58 SnE Steinbeck loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes. V[e-I 48 SnE2 Steinbeck loam,. l5 to 30 percent slopes, eroded. VIe-I 40 SnF Steinbeck loam, 30 to 50 percenCslopes VIe-1 22 SnF2 Steinbeck loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded.. VIe-1 20 Tlie subject soil is typical of tl~e surrounding area. Earthquakes are found throughout the State of California. No warranty is intended or implied by the appraiser as to the soils stability inregards to earthquakes. The appraiser is NOT a sons or structural engineer, and as such is not qualified to render an opinion thereon. " ARM Plan: A portion of the Roblar Ranch is identified in the Aggregate Resources Management (ARM) Plan, which establishes policies and standards for management of the County's aggregate. resources. The 1980 ARM Plan designated quarry, instream, and terrace areas where aggregate mining could take place and established requirements for the reclamation that must: accompany any surface m itling operations. Thee overal_I goals of the Plan are to meet the County's need for rock, sand and gravel while minimizing environmental impacts and land use conflicts. A portion of the subject ranch is identified in the ARM Plan as the Roblar Road Potential Quarry Site. The proposed site would be situated on approximately 60 acres of two larger parcels located at 7175 Roblar Road. Mr. Scott indicated several years ago Mr. Marv Soiland had begun the process of obtaining a permit to remove rock from the subject ranch. Due to opposition from neighbors and an extensive list of conditions and . County requirements for a quarry permit, Mr. Soiland did not pursue opening a quarry on the ranch. The value level indicated in this report does NOT consider the value of the potential quarry site. Rnblar Rn~rc/r, 7/75 Roblar Road, Pern[runa 48 Page l8 Toxic & Elazardous ~Vnste: The value indicated in this report is predicated on the assumption that the subject property is not negatively affected', by the existence of hazardous substances or detrimental environ-riental conditions. Thee appraiser is not an expert iii the identification of• hazardous substances or detrimental environin'eiita9, conditions: The; appraiser's roufine~ inspection. of and inquiries about the subject property did not develop any information that • indicated any' apparent .significant hazardous substances or det~ime-ital environmental conditionswhich would affect tMe property negatively:, [f is possible that tests `and' inspections made ~y a qualified Hazardous substance and environmental' expert would reveal the existence of hazardous .materials :and, environme~ifal coi~d.itions, on or mound tle, property that would' negatively affect its: value.; , • The subject:is:located~adjacent to the old Sonoma County<Land Fi'II, which. was a portion,:of the subject ranch ,up t-nti'1 3 to-4 years ago"when. it was purchased by the. Coi-nty from: tl5e Scott's at a price of $125,000. Ikt~. Ehner:Scott indicated tlie.Land'Fill closed •in 19.72, and, was used•as a burn site. Approximately 4~ to 5 years. ago a closureplan was ~impl`eiiented; and water runoff from the site is captured ,in tanks acid removed from the Prope~5'• Considering the large size of the, subject ranch, the impact on value and marketability of the subject. ranch due to its proximity to Elie ,land `fill is estimated'to beneg(igibler Building Improvements: Improvement"s ,oii the subject.. ranch include a residence, a cottage <and • some'. older agricultural structures of various ,age, condition ;and construction quality. The ualue~ of the siibject~improvements were not considered in '.the appraisa_I; as there is no change in 'the'ualue of the impro~emen'ts in fhe beforeand after condition. Robfar Rmich; 7175 Robinr Ronrl, Peralunur ~ .page t9 49 •i ,. E ' ~ I-~IGI~EST AND BEST' US E{ighest and Best Use is defined' as "The reasonable .probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved ', property; which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, aitd that results in the ` ' highest value." 3 , In estimating Highest and Best Use, the appraiser goes through four stages of analysis: 1. Possible Use (Ph siY tally) -- To what uses it is physically possible to use the subject. 2. Permissible Use (Legally) -- Wltat uses are permitted by zoning and deed restrictions on the subject. 3. Feasible Use (Economically) -- Which possible and permissible uses will produce net return to the owner of the subject. 4. Maximally Productive -- Among the feasible uses, which one will .produce the highest net return, or tlie~l~igltest present worth. Highest And Best Use We begin our analysis of ltighesf and best, use by identifying the legally permissible uses. Any potential use for the subject must coimply with all legal limitations, which include zoning,"general plan; and deed restrictions. Zoning on the subject ranch is Land Extensive.Agriculture, 160-acre density, which .permits one primary --esidence for each 160 acres. Therefore; based on zoning the subject ranch has the potential to be subdivided into five parcels. The minimum size of a newly created parcel is I.5 acres. The purpose of the Land Extensive Agriculture (GEA) zoning is to enhance and protect lands best suited for permanent agricultural use and capable of relatively low production per acre of land. This zoning permits most types of agricultural uses, although some do require a use permit. The permitted uses under the subject's zoning are itemized in the addenda section of this report in the zoning regulations. There are no known deed restrictions which would limit the potential uses to which the subject can be put. The aubject•ranclr is restricted by a Williamson,Act Land Conservation Contract. Tlie contract- limits the . use of fhe property to agricultural pursuits and regulates the number and type of residences which may be coiistructed~: T1~e contract renews annually fora minimum often years. until a notice of non-renewal is '' issued. At the time of notice of non-renewal, the. conservation contract is phased out over a ten year period The second step in our•analysis is to give our opinion as to which of the legally permissible uses are physically possible on the subject's site. Topographically, ahigh percentage of the subject ranch is open, moderate to steep sloping terrain that is well suited for livestock grazing. The appraiser estimates less 3 Tfie Appraisal of Rea! Estate, IOrh Edition, AIREA, 1991. Rohlar Ranch, 7(75 Rob/nr Ronal, Peln(unm 50 Pnge 22 •than_ten percent of the ranch is brush and tree covered. The owner, Mc. John Elmer Scott, .indicated the ranch can accommodate 300-pairs of beef cattle. Several ranches in southwest Sonoma Gounty have been purchased by veteran grape; growers for planting to premium.. varietal wine grapes. There are very few vineyards that.. have been developed near the subject ranch. Development of'the R"oblar Ranch to~ wine grapes is possible", however;, a detailed .soil pro File, soil chemical analysis, weather data and water analysis will need to be completed to determine if the ranch is .suitable For planting to grapes. Since' there are no vineyards near the subject, planting. the property to grapevines is seen to be speculative. A portion of the subject ranch is identified in the ARM Plan as the Roblar Road Potential Quarry Site. Mr. Scott indicated several years ago i~itr. Marv Soiland had begun the process of obtaining a permiteo remove rock from the ranch,. however,, due to opposition from neighbors and, an e:ctensive. list of conditions and County requirements for a quarry permit, Mr. Soiland did not pursue opening a~quarry on the ranch. Obtaining a permit to reni+we rock from the ranch is very speculative. The value, level :indicated in this report does NOT consider the value of the potential quarry site. The third step in our analysis is to identify which. Jegally permissible uses, that are also physically possible, would be economically feasible. Economically feasible uses. are those uses that will yield some return to the land. Those legally permitted uses that are also physicati.y possible; are seen to be those agriculturaF uses common to this area and would be suited. for this ranches topography, soil; and water availability, as well. as all permitted residential uses under this zoning, all which. would likely contribute some value to the land. Land uses in this portion of the county consists of ranchettes .and large acreage. holdings; improved with custom built residences and agricultural structures. The larger acreage holdings are used For a,wide variety of agricultural enterprises, However, a high percentage of the properties are dairies and pasture ranches used for livestock grazing.. , Currently, there is a high demand for small and large acreage properties in ,Sonoma and Maria Counties., Properties that range in size from small' home; sites, two to ten acres, to large acreage parcels are being purchased as estate .properties and not necessarily for their agcicultnrat potential.. Buyers are willing to purchase properties in rural areas and commute 30 to 9Q minutes to work and .city cervices. Smaller acreage ranches,.20,0 acres and less, are in very high demand as estate ranches: Buyers.of estate ranches are more concerned about its privacy, views and amenities; and not its agricultural. utility. Considering the factors mentioned above, we estimate the highest and best use of Roblar Ranch is to . subdivide the property into four small acreage homesites, and retaining the balance of the acreage as a large holding, utilizing the land for livestock grazing. . RuGlar Ra++elr; 7/73 RoGlar Ronrl, Pe~alunra Page 23 51 pi,. . .. .. ~~ ,. . . ,, to the sub'~ect`.ranc.h coiis~der the .coiYi a ~ I~i an ~ To p cables inferior u u ward ad ustm • ti 'ty ,,„ _ p ,, ~ ~ entr to their sale price ~~~ ,.. :has been made. ~~ ,. "' ~G'ilJirifruoit Acl -'The 'subject and Ranch comparables One. and Four are. blanketed 'by, a Williamson Act a ~ Land Conservation Contract: The purpose of this contract isLto help'farmers by providing tax relief, and by ,, discouraging the unnecessary anal premature conversion of agricultural wand to non-agricultural "uses. Subdivision of'Marin County ranches restricted 6y a land conservation contract, even a minor lot split of a very large ranch, is very difficult and tune ,.consuming: `'The appraiser 'has made a slight downward ' ~ " adjushnent to the ranch comparables not encumbered by a Ag: Contract. Zoning- -The subject ranch is zgi~ed Land Exfeiisive Agcieilture r;.LEA), 1.6.0-acre density, which permits "'~ one primary residence for each 1.60-acres. "Therefore, based on, its zoning density, the subject ranch has the potential to be subdivided into° fve -lots. "Ranch comparables One 'and Two are zoned Agriculture & Residential Planned District,, GO-acre density, and Ranch comparables Three and Four are zoned Coastal Agriculture Production Zone, 60=acre density. The zoning density on these four ranches will permit one primary residence for each 60-acres. Due fo the high costs and lengthy approval process. the appraiser estimates it is high{y unlikely :division of these ranches to their- maximum. zoning density would. be permitted by the County of Marin as it is not consistent with. the goals of their general plan ofprotecting agricultural land. The appraiser is.not aware of any recent su6divisioii of agriculture land in Marin County over the last ten years.. Ranch Comparable Five, which is located in Sonoma"County., has similar zoning density as the subject ranch. In the appraiser's opinion,. no adjustment to any of the comparables is .necessary, as.a major subdivision of these ranches is Highly unlikely. ° Property Size -- Typically, there are more participants in the market, for smaller size ranches which tends to ; ~ increase the price per acre and the reverse is true as the size of th`e ranch increase. We have adjusted the sale price of comparables Four and Five"downward to consider their smaller size. I1V SUMMARY -= The Ranch Comparab!e Adjustment Grid on Page 29' indicates the fve comparable ranches in the subject'~market sold. in a range of $2;990 and $4,442. .per acre, and following adjustments as discussed above, the 'indicated land value• is between $4;021 and $4',70.4 acre.. No one single comparable -,, ~ ~prov:ides.~the :best value indication of the subject ranch; therefore; we have utilized a .value within ~ the "indicated raijges Based°upon our analysis of the above data; we estimate the land value of the Roblar'RancFi ,; 'is within the mange ..indicated by the adjusstment grid, and' have finalized our opinion of value 'at $4,500 per acre, which results iii arr i'ndi'cated value of$4,300;000. ` ~ ~ ~ Value Indication ~' 955.59 ;acres x $4,500/acre = $4,300,1 SS •..~ Rounded To $4,3OQ,000 RoGlnr /l nndi; 7175 Robinr Rond,. Pelakuna 52 Pnge 28 ~-G RANCH COMPARABLE ADJUSTMENT GRID Ranch Comparable:No:: 1 2 3 4 `5 Locafiori: ,.10000 ~ 759 1901 `30001 0 Pet.-Pt. Reyes Hicks Vly, Rd.: Estero Road. Highway l Coleman V.ly. Sale Price: 54,250,000 53,700;000_ $3,730;000 ;$800;000 ~ $1';699;000 Acreage.: 1,006.7 833:0 1,254:2 • 228.7 ~ 4'15:4° Price Per Acre: $4;222 •.54,442. ~ °52,9)0 $3',498 . $4;090 Property Rights^Trans.:• FeeFSimplc Fce Simple Fcc Simple Fie Simple: FeeSimple. Adjustment: $0 'S0; $0 ~ 50 3Q Financing: Market Market Market Market Market Adjusted`1'rice:' $0 $0 $0 $0 50 Condition of Sale: SO' $0 $0 $0 $0 Improvements:, ($.150;000) ,:. ($400,000) $0 SO :$0 Land ResiduaL• $4;100,000 x$3,300;000 $3,750;000 $800;OQ0 $1,694;000 Market Conditions; 7-Dec-00 f3-Oct-92 I Z=Fcb-94 1a-Nov-00 Pending Sale Adjustment: $1Z3;000~ 5742;500. $.1;393,730. $36,000 <$0, ..Adjusted Price: $4;223,000 ;54,,042;500 $5,043,750 $836,000 $1,699;000 Adjusted Price Per Acre: $4,f95 $4,853 $4,021 $3;655 54;090 Location: 0:0% 0.0% I~A.O% 20:0,% 20:.0% P.er Acre Adjustment: $0 50• $40Z $731 5818 Access: Ot0% Y 0.0% Ot0% 00% 0:0% PenAcre A'djusfinent: $0 50` $0 $o ~ so Topography/Ag. Utility 0.0% 0:0% 00% 5:0% 1'0.0%; P.er'Acre Adjustment: 50 $0 $l)~ . 5;..1:83 5409 Williamson Act:' Ycs No No Ycs No P.crcentage Adjustmetn: 0:0% =5.0% -5':0"/0, Os0%o '-3';0%0 Per Acre-Adjustments 30 {$243) ($201>) $0 ~ ($205) • Zoning: A-60 A=60 ,CAPZ=60; CAPZ=60 LGA-160' Peccentagegdjustment: 0;0% 0.0% .0.0% 0.0% 00%• ., 'Per Acre Adjustment: 50 $0 s0 . 50 `30 Size (Acres): 1',006.7 833.0 1,254:2 228:7 - 41'5.4 Percentage Adjustment:, Q.0% 0.0% 0.0% ,1.3.0% -t00% Per Acre..Adjystment: ,50' ~ 50 $0 ~ . ($548) ($409) Total Adjustments: $0 (5243) $201 5366 $tib4 Adjusted Price P.er Acre: $4,k95 54,6x0 $4,223 54,02.1 $4,204 Roblar Raaclr, 71.75 Rohlgr Road, PetalurnnJ3 -page 29 ti • ~.. ~. • Access - /Ian Ranch and Easement Compa'rables One and' Th The Rod ree have convenient ingress/egress from a county marntarned road, and warrant .no adjustment for access: Easement Comparable Two is p . . loc-ited off State Hi' hwa 3 "; halt paved hi~ghwa • ' 7 a four lane, as y. At certain times of the day ingress/ ess to t ie ro er ~s difficult , e r p p'°~ ty y due to lugh traffic flow,; To,coisider the difficult access to thi 'ra '~ '' 'i~ge ap raiser has'made an a ward ad`ustment to its sale nce s nch J... ~ o~ography/A ric ;, ~ ultural Utility =The Proposed Unlnri[ed Agricul[ure easement will not impact the ~/ current and/or futu re agricultura .,,uses of the subject ranch. All of 'the comparables are restricted by a ;', ° ^r ' '~ similar easement as proposed for the:. Roblar Ranch., Easement Comparab,les One grid Three are moderate ~~ ,' to steep sloping ranches that have inferior agricultural utility when compared to the sribjcct ranch. Both comparables are best`suited for livestock grazing.. Easement Comparable Two is primarily gentle. sloping l~ '~ terrain that is we11 suited for growing forage crops and livestock' g"razing. The topography/agricultural utrlit of the subject ranch is su error Y' J p whert.compared to the easeni"ent comparables; therefore, an upward ~:.I adjustment to their sale price is necessary. ~. Prone'rty Size -Typically, tlef•e are. more participants in the market for si»aller size ranches which tends to increase the price per acre and. the reverse is true as the size of the ranch increase. We have adjusted the safe price of all of the comparables; downward to consider their smaller size. IN SUMMARY - We have utilized. three sales for comparison to the Roblar Ranch subject to the proposed Unlimited Agricz~llure conservation easement. The Conserirci[ion Easemerr! Comparable A~jurta~er~t Grrd on.Page 35 indicates the comparables sold in a range of$1,324 and $3,092 per acre, and following adjustments as discussed above and shown on the grid at the~end_of this section, the indicated land value is between $2,039- and $2,653 per acre. No one comparable sale provides the best indication of value of the 767.85 acre portion of the. Roblar Rarich in the after condition; therefore, equal weight has been placed on each comparable. Based, upon our analysis o.f theabove sales data, we estimate tlae value of the Roblar[Zanch is within, the range indicated by the adj~ustment.grid and have finalized" our opinion of vali-e in the "nf[er- 'cond'ition at $2;400 per acre, which results in a total value for this portion of the ranch of $1,840,000. 767:8.5",acres x $2,,400/acre Rounded To $1,84.2,84:0 ~ , , $1,840,000 ,~ Rvh/nr RmrcJr, 7/75 Robhr Rorrrl, Petalunrn G ~ c 54 Purge 33 .v . ~„,, , H „ ~ ,. CONSERVATION EASEMENT AA,T~JSTMEN'T GRID Casement Comparable No. 1 Z~ ~ ,3 Location: 24800 ~ 3:900 °2849' State Hwy. I State,Hwy. 37 Middle,Rd. Sale Price: $925,000 $700,000 $1,100;000 .Acreage:. 58.8.3. - 528.8 355'.7 Price Per Acre:- . $1;572 $1 X324 $3,092. I'ruperty Rights Trans.: -Fee Simple Fee: Simple Fee Simple Adjustment; $0 $0 $0 Financing:. Market Market Market; fdjusted Price: $0 $0 $0' ':Condition of Salo '$0 $0 $0 ' ,Improvements:: ($150;000): $0~ ($400,0.00,); Land Residual:. $775000 $700;000 $7.00,000. ;Market Conditions: 3'1-Mar-99 ~ 3•~Nov-97 (S=Jun-00. Adjustment:.. ,$255,750 $62,500 '$73:,500 + - Adjusted Pr"ice: $1:;030,750 $y62,500 $773,50:0 Adjusted Price Per Acre: $1,752 $1',820 $2,175 Location: I,0.0% 1.0.0% 20.0% Per Acre Adjustment:- $'175 $182 $43;5 . Per Acre Adjustment: $0 ~ $9l $0 Topography,/~-g. Utility 4'.0:0% 5.0% I S:0% Per,Acre Adjustment: .$701 $9'l $326 ;Size (Acres),: 588:3 .528.8 ~ 3:55.7 Pe"rcentage Adjustment: -8:0% =80% -13,:0% PerAereAdjustment;' ($140) ($146) ($283) Total Adjustments; $73.6. $2'i8 $478 .. Adjusted PriccPer Acre: $2;488 ,$2,039 $2,653 Robldc Rnrrck, .71;75 Koblrrr Rood,' Relalrinra 55 ~ Page 35 n ~~ ~ ~ ,. iii"'I n '~~~eil. i I i,li ~ r. I.~, ~ .. ,° °" 'VALUE OF CONSERVATION"''EASEIYIENT ` "° , ,,,.. . ~~ Thee v~lu ~ sed Conservator Easement is ..stimated to'be th _ , , e of they r' pci ~ n P c difference iii value between the ~~ p ~;. urgent unrestricted property value, "before. value"'and thervalue as .restricfed by the proposed Unlimited ' ' ~ -~ Agricu!lur.~e conservation easement "after value". This is calculated as follows: ~ ~~ ,., Conservation Easement Value '' " "~ Unrestricted Value("before') $4.,300,000 F ~; ° Value-Subject To A Conservation Easement ("After ") 2 680 000 " ~ ~ - Conservation Easement Value $1,620,000 ;, ', ,.~. „' 56 Page 37 April 29, 2002 SONG CIA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL P R E S E RVA`I' I O I~1 & OPEN SPACE -- D 1 S T R 1 (. 't' J.ohn,Barella P. O: Box 6004 Petaluma, CA 94955 Dear IVIr: Barella: You recently submitted a project application, for sale of a, conservation easement to, the D"istrct over the Roblar Ranch,; formerly owned lry` the Scott :family. As you know, the District worked with the Scotts to design a conservation easement over thins property'and liad.made a purchase offer for the °easement at the time that Ebner Scott passed away. ' 747 Men ocino Avenue: The ;Distract has retained' ;this property on our Active Pro~ect° List, as "we` believe it-.to Suite.. X00 be an important ranch due to it_s:~size and productivity: We remain veiy interested in Santa Rosa, CA : 95401850 helping to `preserve this property with a conservauon easement.. However, the (707) SE~5=7360 application that you .subrriitted, does. not provide enough information for us:, to Fax: (707) 565-7370 proceed with the conservation easement. The conservation easement .appraisal. that was previously .done was based on a majority of the:property''beingrctained as a single parcel;with one development right: This .project design would preclude dividing the: property after the conservation easement. is executed. Lf you plan. to divide the property a, new conservation easement: will. need to be developed which would then. ,be appraised: Additionally, -when the design of a conservation easement project chang_ es," District staff typically :reviews the proposed changes and evaluate whether or not the ;project still meets the District's goals. If you. plan to proceed with the sale of a conservation easement to the District, please provide a written description and accompanying maps of th_e, proposed new project, design (.e. proposed division. of land and. any .adjustments to the excluded area at the'northerri end ofthe property). Please submit he requested information by Nlay 10`h or let me know if your plans to continue working with the District; have changed': I .look #orward to hearing from you. Thank you very rnch. ,~" ~" sa Bush. Senior Open Space Plrnmer r. Andrea.lVlackenzie, General Muwuiger Paul-;Rowan, Aegarisition Spcticrlut File 57 - F v~: i~~i v.~1J. 1'.:1.1 1V'/ JL` .1UJ x ~l. Y I- . ... ,,. °'' ~: " '~' To: Andrea Mackenzie ~~ ~~~' Fax # x7370. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~M l~~l~~~ .~ ~, ; - ~ Re: Scott Ranch --John Barelia ~'~ Date: July 25, 2002 ' " ~ Pages: 2, including this cover sheet. ~, Andrea, I spoke. with SuPecvisor Kerns about this project yesterday.' Evidently Mr. Barelia has filed ACC ! and lot line adjustment=applications that would be necessary'to complete the conservation easement with the Open Space District. As you probably knew, ACC applications are a low priority with stafF and `they often take up to one year to com Mete. However, if the ACC/LLA approval is needed to accornpGsfi a public purpose. such as a~guisition of a conservation easement, we ,can. move. it up.in the queue. A letter from yc u requesting expedited processing would be' sufilcienfto accornP(ish this. Please give me a call ~,t x2563 so we can discuss. Pete Parkinson PRMD m :: ~ ,. ,,, .. DA~'~E (,ti OZ 58 N ~, ~~:. AURICLILTIJRAL PItES,ERVATION' & OPEti SP.~CE n i s -~... ~ . ~ ~ ~_ June 6, 20C2: lylr.. john.$arella P. O. sox 6CQ4 Petaluma; Ctn. 9495 Re: Roblar Ranch Property Division and Conser ation Easement Design. Dear Mr. Barella: To follow up, our Vlay 8~ meeting regarding the potential-purchase of. a conservation. easement over your Roblar Road property,. I have r~searche•j the steps: that: will be, required before you can divtde your property and complete'the project. At our recent:meetingyou presentedmaps showing your~planned.division of the property nt~~ three lots- orie~of which you plan to keep and develop a quaaryon; and two-of which,you.plaz to sell to adjoinng.neghbors. 7~7 Mendocino venue T ~- =-- - ra.T G ~_ d- d q '~Sanagerne;.z:De asst. ed CO. ~cu .r F11nda twCu,. ,c Petzrtt aii i 2sv'::ir~~ Suite ] ()p ~ part.-ner,,. Pla:,ner IvIeave ~~;l~acp y 1ve Ceralicates of:, ComplranCe gn rocess our Admuustrat ACC ~ pp "catton: Santa Rosa. CA ~~ estunates that rt will be 11 months to one year before the ACC a ~ } .a h 9 07)l5fi 5 360 th p ~ )- . ^. loch you P review will be com leted. TluS work has to.be done before a of line ad'ustment 'w ~`lan to create Fax: (707) 56~-7370 e three lots with,... can be pemutted: :Stnce the third lot that well be quarried will not be included in .the conservation easement, a lot.line adjustment has, to be in place. before the' District's: conservation, easement. is finalized. .~ lot line adjustment ~apphcation' can be submitted concurrently: with the.. ACG applicati~~n and the. District cari proceed with 'its conservation easement process while these are uttderway, However, the;aot line adjustrrment; must fie in place prior to the completion,o"f-the cot nervation easement transaction.:. As you know, ehe. appraisal that was done Burin; the District's negot~noiis with-the Scott. Family is out of date. $ecause of -this: and` becaus ~ the project structure.has changed (i;e, you. now want to divide the conservation .easement u-ea in two), we will have- "to have a new .appraisal done. AS outlined in my letter of April 25~, the conservauon easement ;appraisal that was previously done- was- based.on' a majority of E. ie property being• retained as a 'single. parcel with, one development right. This project design would have: precluded dividing the p"roperty after the conservation easement is executed. The original conservation easement design was meant. to ensure that the property would stay in one aarge piece, which, would'°increase the likelihood tha iowill remain able to support a viab: a agricultural operation. At our dast'rneetirig; you. mentioned• that. you. now plan. to include the existing. house. with the u q airy parcel..Since you plan to sell the<tvvo parcels that would be subject to the conservation easement to neighboring ranchersr to expand the r: current operations, ~cve feehthat the best project design would,be to elttaunate all of the de~~elopment rights from these parcels..: :Please let me know how you would like to proceed, given. the proposed .changes, to the. project and extended timeline necessit ated by the ACC and'lot line adjustment applications. ~,sa Bush Senior Ojrn Space Plc~rer c: r'~ndre~Mackcnze, Gnaeml Mandger Pa•.ilRowan, L'cint(.;icgrruiticvc,Spcvalist 59 '~ .;~ ~a''. ,~~ ~• J^ ,r p. ;I. ~ ~ ~ I Otl .n ~~,il I ~IPI~4W IR~ 7tll? 1~1 4w ,. ; ~„ ~~~h~P~~,~ ~~~ I II ., 5 t) V C) Al 4 .(:"O 1. ~~..~.-~. AGRICUL"I'L1RA.L ,, PRESERVATION I . & OPEN SPAGE ' b I R T R~ I C I' I' ~„ ; I 747 Mendocino Avenue Suite 100 ~~ ,Santa Rosa, CA ... 9540~I -4850 ,(707) 565=73601 Fax: (707) 565=7359 august 20, 2003 Mr-John,Barella P: O. Box 6004 `Petaluma, CA 94955 Dear Mr. Barella, Thank you for working with District staff on a conservation easement for your propertty., Attached you will find the revised' draft of Exhibits B' and `C' of, the Conservation .Easement Deed„and agreement The, revisions tharwere requested are reflected in these documents.' The proposed project structure,now has ,two separateparcels, A and B, with both parcels retaining a. potential development right; with the understanding that the .neighboring landowners,. the Wilson family of Diamond "W" Dairy and the Tresch family, will. be purchasing the underlying fee title of parcels A and B, respectively, encurnbered by the District's agricultural: conservation easement. `t Please review this document carefully. As you may know it will be used to appraise the value of the conservation ,easement. If you are asking, .any ,advisors, to review this document, please request that,.they review it at this time. It is important: that we agree on the project structure, including the,,proposed perriutted and prohibited uses, before commencing the apptaisal..AJter reviewing the encla.red d_ ocumentr, sign at the bottom of this letter and ,return it to the Dirtrtct o~ce by August 29, 2003. to of the Conservation Easement Deed and Agreement does not ' -~ constitute a teement to lll a conservatton easement: However, tt is understood that tt is your intention. to complete this transaction if an agreement can be reached on price. Your signatures will. allow us to proceed with the appraisal process once the modifications to your lot-line adjustment application have been accepted by the County's Permit, Resource and. Management Department. Please- notify Stuart 'Martin when this is completed so that he can contact the appraiser to arrange an initial site visit. It is important to note.that~the Easement Deed. and Agreement cannot be changed during the appraisal' process After the appraisal is completed,, only minor changes that do not significantly affect,the conservation easement purpose'or restrictions will be considered. If you have. questioris,~about any of the information .presented here, please do not hesitate to call Stu,I~Iartin or meat 565-7360. Sincerely, ~~ I ~ ~~ ~ Marta Puente I . I~° I.~.:'Open. Space Planner , I, ,. I. ,, ,, i , II , „ °e" Joe and-Kathy Tre9th - Ken ;U(rilson I Stuart;Ma2tin, Land Acquisition Specialist I have reviewed'the "Deed and Agreement and Exhibits B' and `C', and agree with the restrictions and allowances over my property which will be considered as part of the appraisal ,;~~I ~,~ process: ~ ' 'n;.' , I John E: Barella. Date Andrea ~1. Barella Date , :. ~ v. ~ , ., ~ ,~. . ~ ~ , EXHI$IT "B" AGRICULTURAL. COIVSERVATI(~N:EA:SEMENT PERMITTED USES ANI) PRAC~'IGES The following uses and practices,. though not necessarily an exhaustive recital o`f consistent uses acid .practices; are permitted under this Agreement, provided tha_ t, they are undertaken in; accordance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement and that all applicable governrnerital approvals _and permits are properly obtained and followed: , 1. Consistent Uses:: To use. or lease. the Property consistent with tl~ie conservation purpose .of this. Agreement. 2. Agricultural Uses:. To engage in agricultural uses of the Property in accordance with spund, generally accepted" agricultural and soil' `conservation, practices -and :provided, thatauch :agricultural uses shall not result.in, significant soil degradation, or gnificant-poIIution or degradation of any surface or subsurface waters. For the purpose of this Agreement, agricultural. uses" shall be defined' as: , ^ breeding, raising, pasturing, and grazing livestock of every nature .arid descnptioon fbr the ~~-`~~ production of °food a_nd :fiber -1 , ® breeding and raising'bees,'fish, poultry. ,.and. other fowl; 0 planting; rai"sing, harvesting,, and producing°agricultural,.aquaeultural, horticultural, and; forestry crops and products of every nature and description providi=rd:however ;thah no cultivation or `` ,:permanent crop planting shall occur under the canopy •o£ anp oak'or other native tree; ,designated ~ as `Natural ResourceAreas' on the Baseline Site Map; ~. and the rocessin s' ~ • p ~ g, torage.and sale,.including direct retail sale Eo the~public. of crops' acid ,products harvested and produced principally on the Properny,,piovided that tle:processing, storage and sale of any such. crops or products Shat are,not food,. fiber, or plant. material shall. ?~ require. the consent of DISTRICT. 3. Stiuetures and Other Impro~ements• GRANTOR_may undertake construction, reconstruction; orother improvement of the Property orily as provided below.Location of ,~~ residences and agricultural accessory structures will be chosen so as to rruniinize visual impact ~~ from Valley Botd Road. a. Construction of Primary Residences• The. total number of°primary single-family residences on the Property shall not exceed two: one on Parcel A and one on Parcel B. Said .residences ,shall be located within the "Ag Complexes" on bath `Parcels A and B', delineated on the Baseline Site Map and shall not`exceed 4,500 square feet iri size and 30 feet in heighG,on Parcel A and shall not exceed 4,OO,U square feet and, 20 -feet. ur 'height on Parcel B, 'exclusive of the garages, each ofwhich shall not.exceed 1,000 square feet;in size and 20 feetn height on either Parcel. Construction or placement of said residences and associated roads shall not be commenced until written;approVal is obtained from the DISTRICT, in accordance with, the u ron irons set. g ith.in Papragraph 5 of this Agreement. DISTRICT'S approval shall' be .based p s findui that:the roposed construction or placement is not visible :from Valley.Ford. Road,, is not within. any designated `Natural Resource Area" and is consi'sterit with the conservation purpose. of this Agreement. B-1 Roblar Ranch Permitted Uses 6"~ 8/20/03 ,~ y~. ~. ~ , e ., ~ G i' ,. .. b. Construction of AgriculturalAccessory Residenees• To construct or place agricultural ,,~; the Pro ereslWin~cel ~ed assoca_ted:access roads reasonably~necessary to the.agricultural uses of` ,, ,,.. i ~ ,, p rty ~ ~ `Ag Complex' on Parcels.A and'B, delineated on the Baseline Site'`Map, provided. that; GRANTOR obtains the prior written approval of DISTRICT in accordance with the provisions set forth in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement for'the construction of such additional L,,.. ~ structures, and that.sucl construction is'made in accordance with applicable laws. DISTRICT's " ~ . ;approval shall be based upon its finding that'the proposed construction or placement is not ~~ ^ ~ visible from Valley Ford' Road, is not within any designated `Natural Resource Area" and is .,r° i, .„: consistent with the conservation purpose of this Agreement. c. Construction of Agricultural Structures:- To construct or place agricultural improvements agr>cultural structures reas~g unprovements, including, `but not limited to barns and other onably necessary for the agricultural uses. of'the Property within the "Ag Complexes" on both„Parcels A~ and B; provided that.. GRANTOR obtains the prior written approval of the DISTRICT.in~accordance with the,provisions set forth in Paragraph' S of this Agreement for the construction of such additional improvements; and that such construction is made In accordance with sed upon its finding pplicable laws. DISTRICT s approval shall be ba that the proposed construction or placement Is not vlsible'Erotn Valley Ford Road, is not within designated `Natural Resource Area" and is consistent with the conservation purpose of this A cement. d. Replacement of Improvements: In the .event of destruction; deterioration or obsolescence. of an residen¢e,~~~agricultural structures or roads conforming to the requirements of this A cement whether existing at ' gr the ,date hereof or constructed subsequently pursuant to ' the provisions of this Agreement,, GRANTOR may replace same with :ones of similar size, ~,~ . function, capacity and location,. provided that GRANTOR obtains the prior~written approval of DISTRICT in accordance: with the provisions set forth in Paragraph S of this :Agreement. ~~,. ~I '~., e. Maintenance Repair' and Renovation of Structures: To .maintain and' repair structures on the Property without prior notice to or approval by DISTRICT.°provided; however, that such maintenance and repatr'is consistent with the .conservation purpose of this Agreement. To renovate, which can'include expansion or enlargemenrof residences and agricultural structures ~~ ,in a manner which does not impair the conservation purpose. of this A.greement,'provided that '. GRANTOR shall .obtain th'e:pror written approval. of DISTRICT for'such renovation in accordance with the rovlsions'set forth in Para a h 5 of this A reement and rovided fur th ,, „ at no, such renovation shall result in the p ry P g y g arcel A ,bem .the," d i ~~~ p .. ~, r~ma sln le-falnil residence, on P P ' ' •' r ,~~i g ' an 4 500 s u ' are feet and 30.feet ~ ry g y B larger th q lil height: and the prima ~ 'sin le-famil bn Parcel ' being larger than 4 000 square Feet and 20feet in height; .and. any other- residence accessory to the agricultural'use being greater ,than 2,000 square •feet in size :and 20 feet in height. . f. Fericin~c To construct and maintain fencing only as necessary for agricultural uses, natural --° resources protection or other uses .accessory to the residential•use of the Property. Such fencing must be the mm~rnum e • ~ nee , scary for agricultural uses,-natural resources protection, or other h minor.. uses accessory, to the residential. use of the property. In. the event of destruction, deterioratlon,+yor obsolescence of.any fences, whether existing at the date hereof or constructed subsequently pursuant. to the provisions of .this zgreement, GRANTOR may replace such ~., fencing wlth a fence of slrnilar size (i.e.; no greater in height or~length),~ function, capacity and • location, without prior.notice to or.approval by DISTRICT; provided, ,however, that such replacement: (i)' is consistent with the conservation purpose of this Agreement, including the i .~~~~ ' , .~ ~; .,, ~; 8-~62 Roblar Ranch Yermittetl Uses 8/20/03 ,~ , . , ap ^4' , ! , +. „ ~ .,, preservation ,of scenic values; '(ii) does not impede wildlife movement except in cases where thisiExhibof $rand~m tco ecessary to protectfthe,agncultural uses described in•-Para a "h.3 of P . gr p. - (~) mplies with the DISTRICT'S then current'standards for fences on conservation- lands. g. Roads. To construct and' maintain roads,;necessary "for ;a_nd .accessory 'to the agricultural uses of the Property and roads necessary for access ~ to residences ,provided', that. GRr'1NTC-R obtains the prior wntten..approval of DISTRICT in accordance with the, provisions set forth in Paragraph ~5 of this. Agreement. for. the construction of sireh roads; and. that, such construction is made;in accordance with applicable laws. al Uses: To utilize the,Property for recreational or educational purposes: provided 4. that neo stgnificant~surface:alteration or other development of'',the.land shall:occur;in connection. with any such use. Such uses tray include, without limitation; ,hiking;, horseback riding,, nature;. study, and hunting _and fishing as permitted by°the. California Department of Fish and Game.or other applicable agency. - 5. Water Resources:' To maintain and' modify existing water resources on `the. Property; to develop new springs,-;and, wells;: "to lay or construct pipes; and: conduits for thee. transportation,of water, 'Deve_lopment of ,additional waEer'storage facilities such as freshwater and,wastewater tanks: and reservoirs,; shall be permitted, provided .that GRANTOR obtain the prior :written approval of'-DISTRICT in accordance with. the provisions set forth in Paragraph S ~of this ilgreetnent..Development, maintenance and-modification of water resources under `this paragraph shall, tie limited. tb that necessary or convecient for- ranching, agricultural, irrigation or residentiaLuses on the Ptoperty.andshall in all,instanees. be.developed in a manner consistent with the conservation purpose,of this A'greement.. 6. Signs:, To construct, place; or erect signs on the Property; provided that the size of an_y such, sign shall individually not exceed bitty-.two (32)"square Eeet;,for' tlie~ followng~purposes: ,a; sign .(one)"reasonably :necessary for~the: identification of, the Property;" a sign',or signs to advertise its si s advocator candidates or issu will 6e leresented to vloterstinprod~licsel coon prooide that such si g or si swill be res that " P P grI gn emoved within two weeks. after the election. 7. Easements:; To continue use of existing easemerifs of record granted prorto.;this Agreement: .New easements and,modifi~ations to,easements, of.record as :of the date lieteof'require they approval of DISTRICT in accordance with the. provisions set forth to Paragraph 5 of. this Agreement;~lew easements or easement modifications may only be granted~where they will"`` ~` - remove or significantly lessen the.irrrpact of e~cisting .easements of record on the protected value ~. set forth to the conservation „purpose "of this .Agreement t It is~ the' primary duty of the ` "_~"` GRANTOR to enforce the limiting. provisions, of new "eas'~nents and easements of record. granted prior:xo. this Agreement.. It is fiirther~the du of.GItANTOR to prevent the use of the . ty, Property by third parties thatmighh tesult..in the creation of prescriptive rights that.are inconsistent with the terms; and conditions of the conservation purpose of this Agreement. 8. Agrichemicals: To use governtnent;approved agriehemica'ls~ including but not.."limited, to,. fertilizers and: biocides, in those amounts and,with that,frequency of application, necessary- to accomplish reasonable agricultural rnanagernent; consstent"with the conservation, purpose of this Agreement and within. limits ofapplicable,government'regulations and guidelines'. s-363 Roblar Ranch.I'errrutted Uses 8/20/03 i. . i.. 9. .Animal ConttoL To.,control predatory and problem animals by the use of selective control techniques consistenrwth-policies pzomulgated by the Sonoma C"ounty Agricultural- N ~ ~~ Conunissoner~and otlier governmental entities having jurisdiction. ~~ ~: , and Enhancement• To unde 10: Restoration ,, ,, ~ .~ ~ ce. with sound en practices thatpromote soil N~ ~ stabilization. and reduce e"ros~bn ui accordanttake conserva g n A royal of DISTRICT in accordance witl they Tally accepted practices. ~ ~ pp. provisions set forth in Paragraph S~of this ': Agreement°is required~when cbnservationpracuces involve significant surface alteration. ~,,,' 11. Rerazoval.of~lVon-1Va6ve.Plants: To remove nvasive,;non-native plant species that threaten or ~~ impede the growth of native species or the property's agricultural uses. 8/20/03 ' EXHIBIT "C" r~GRICULTERAL CONSERVA,T,IOIV EASEMENT PROHIBITED USES •AND PRACTICES The following uses and practices, though,no.t'necessarily an e~:haustive~rectal'of,inconsistent°uses and practices,, are inconsistent with. the. purposes of this: Agreement and shall be prohibited upon or within the Property. 1. Inconsistent Uses: 'To establish. or carry out any nonagricultural commercial ,orrindustrial activity or use.. 2. Signs: To .construct, place, or erect any ;sign or bllbpard' except as provided in Paragraph 6 of Exhibit "$~". 3. Construction. To construct, reconstruct, or "replace any structure .or improvement except as provided in :Paragraph 3 and 5 of Exhibit: "B." 4. ' Subdivision:; To divide, subdivide, or de facto subdivide b.y lot-line~adjustment, application for certtfieates of compliance pursuant to the Subdivision Map r~ct or other'mearis, of the Property,. ~ . provided, however;; that. a lease of a portion of th'e Property for agricultural use. shall. not, be ~. prohibited bythis paragraph., ~ . 5. Motorized' Vehicles: To use -motorized vehicles, except for. GRANTOR or' o liens under.. ~.. ,. GRANTOR'S con- trol for:.. agricultural, ranching; emergency or residential use of the: Property. i~ny use of motorized vehicles off roadways. is;prohibted:exceptwhcn -necessary for emergency, agricultural'or ranching purpose§. l~ 6. Dumping- To dump or accumulate trash, ashes, garbage,.. waste, inoperative vehicles; :or other ~~~ unsightly material on- the Property; provided,. however,. that agricultural, products and by- products :may be,placed or- stored, on .the land; so long as such placement or storage is consistent with law, public health, and sound agricultural'practices. ~~_~~ .I 7. Fences:. To construcE any fences.except,as provided for-~in Paragraph 3> of Exhibit B. °' 8. Roads: To construct any road.. except as provided.°in .Paragraph 3" of Exhibit B.. 9. Water and Soil Degradation: Toengage, or permit any activity oii the Property. that results in significant soil. degra'dation,_'or significant; pollution or degradation of any surface or subsurface waters. 10: Storage of Equipment and.ll~Iaterials• To store work materials outdoors. which may be visible from, public roadways such as pipes, culverts; fencing, Heavy equipment-and the like, except while wo~k~is,in progress and not.for any period exceeding ninety (90) days. 1 l..Utilities:. To nstaIl new above-ground utilityaysterns; including,.'without°;hinitation, water, sewer, .power, fuel, :and communication lines and related activities ;and equipment, except :for systems ervng~permitted.. ranching, agricultural, irrigation,, or residential uses on the Property as provided in. Paragraph: 7 of Exhibit B,, C-1 Roblar Ranch Ptohibiied Uses ~ 6J 8/20/03 ." yr ~ .. ~ . w ,. .. ,7 ,,'... , . ~ ,~ , raf' ~ ~ , ignficanfly .alter the surface of the .land,, including, :but., 12. 'Surface Alte ion or Excavation: To, s not limited to; the .excavation or removal, of. soil,, and; ;gravel, rock, o= sod, except as may=be '~ ~ ~ s; and„darns on the Property and then .only in re aired to rovide material for the repair ofroad ~,:.~ : q p ,~,~ ~~~, small quantities from a site approved~~in writing by DISTRICT in accordance with the provisions ~.°,~ ~. ,, set forth in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. ,~ ~i:. ' .. 13. Minim: To .explore; develop, or extract minerals or hydrocarbons by any muting method, , ~ surface or otherwise. ~,, 14. Native Vegetation Damage or~Rell have.the ri ht to cutYor temovey native trees or shrubs ;, „ , provided, however, that Grantor s a g trees.as reasonably necessary to control insects, and diseases ,or to prevent personal injury .and„property damage. To cultivate or plant any permanent-crops under the canopy of any native. trees. To. cut, collect or store wood on the Propertty for commercial purposes except'as provided for in ;Paragraph 2 of Exhibit B. To remove or destroy native'shrubs. ~, ~ .~ 1 i ,;,. ,,,. .~ ;,. i ~ „ ., . ,~, ,~ ~+ . ~'„ ,,~ ,~i .~ ~~ ~~~ ~,~~ C_2. ~ , Roblar Ranch ProhibiredUses 66 3/20/03 " ~ ~ ~ , • ~~ APPRAISAL ASS®~IATES Real Estate Appraisal & Consultation Services . October 17,.2003` Stuart Ivfartin Senior Lar-d.Acquisition Specialist Sonoma.County'AgricultutaLPreservation & Open Space District 747 Mendocino Avenue, Suite l00 Santa Rosa CA 95401-4850 Re: The Barella Property Dear IVIr. Martin: At your request; the above referenced property has been appraised: The purpose of'the appraisal is',:to estirnate~ale value;. of a proposed "Agricultural" conservation easetrierit over a ;portion ,of the' property. 'The ifuncrion of the :appraisal~is. to assist •the :'Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & ' Open Space District in `its. decision-making;proeess xegardirig conservation of the. subject property. This, is a Self Contained Narrative $p;praisal Report'oE~a complete. appraisal assignment, which is intended to comply with the appraisal:and appraisal reporting requirements set forth under :Standards 1. and 2 of the 'Utuforn Stand"arils "of Professional Appraisal Practice. As such, i`t• presents a full ` discussion. oEthe data, .reasoning, and analyses that were. used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser's opinion of°value. 'Supporting documentation. concerning~the data, reaso""~ing;:and analyses diseussed,,in the appraisal is retained in the apprai"set's ..file. - t1n inspectign of the property and.a;study of pertinent factors led the appraiser to the conclusion that-the market value of the subject property"", as of Oc.to6er.:6 2003, and before impositibn:of'fhe proposed'. easement is $5,445,000. After the proposed easement, the subject property is estimated to have. a value, subject.to the permitted and prohibited uses; of the easement, of'$2,775;000 The difference between the "before" value. and the "after" value 'is the value of the proposed conservation easement. The~estimated value~of the conservation easement is theaamount of TWO MILLION SIX,HL'TNDRED'SEVENTY"THOLJSAIVD DOLLARS ($2,620,000) y fy ,inspected he• property .appraised. and the comparable'.: sales, that. I have no r resentror contem lat d interest.in the property, and that to the, best of':iny knowledge and P p belief; all statements of fact.contained herein are true and coi•reet. It has been a pleasure, to assist you. If`T may be of :further service to you in the future,, please let me know. ' Respectfully submitted, Chris,Bell, MAI California Certified General Appraises #AG023519 JODU,CLEVELA.Nb AVC,NUE • SU1,"l'E Zb;4 SA^N'1''A RQ'SA, CA 9340) PI10'NG; (7Q7) ,5;G')`-K$'7I FAX: (7U7) 571:-H959 67 ' . ~ ,• , . ,,~ ' ~;' .i; . ~„ i;.. ;~~ ~ ~, , . ' ", , A',~~ .;, ~," , u r,, ~, .: ~~+ ,, ~~ fl,1' ,, I I ,~ ~ i ~d' ,, SUMMARY ~:F IMPORTANT FAGTB AND .CO`1VCLLJSIONS ,. GENERAL INFORMATLON - , PROPERTY TYPE Rural Residential.Ranch Land LOCATION The property is located in a rural area south of the City of Sebastopol and west of Rohnert Park/Cotati, in southwestern Sonoma County. The property has access from frontage on Roblar Road. O~`UNER OF RECORll + Ownership is in the name of John and Andrea Barella, under The Barella Family Trust ' Agreement. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY A.rse.r.carJ Parce! Nsemberr:" 027-080-007, 027-200-002 and 027-210-002 The subject .cite. The subject property includes roughly 956.30 acres of rolling land in the coastal hills of southwestern Sonoma County. Cover includes brush and natural grass cover, as well as scattered oak woodlands. The im~irovementr: The property is improved with asingle-family residence, a small cottage, a large barn and several agricultural outbuildings in various age and condition. Other site improvements on the. property include developed wells, septic systems, several ponds, agricultural roads and Eencirig. Pre.cent'Llre: The property is currently used as agricultural land for cattle grazing. The ' _' exiseing improvements are- currently vacant. The property includes six recorded m ,Ad , inistrauve'Certificates of Compliance parcels, allowing for the sale'and development a~ of six separate ,parcels -ranging in size from about 11.3 acres to 3$7 acres. The largest of the ACC's;;has;,the potential under zoning to be further divided into two parcels (160-acre dersi'ty), ' ~, , ~~ Zoning; Zoning: For the property is designated. LEA-B6-160 Z, or Land Extensive Agriculture with a 160 acre density. The Z-combining district indicates a second unit exclusion. INTEREST VALUED i' , ,. ~. Th'is appraisal .estimates'.the. value of Fee Simple Interest in the property appraised. ' "' ~ ~\n>irn[s~u,llssociniFS e' Tld Boirlla Prnptrly 5 !~, .~, ,~ 68 ,:. ~ ~ , HIGHEST AND:BEST USE The subject's Highest and Best Use in it's as is condiuonis concluded to be for development and sale of np to: six.. rural residential homesite parcels through lot line adjustments, with, the. possibility of a seventh parcel allowed through zoning. After the proposed easement, the subject's, Highest :and Best Use is concluded to be for development of three parcels, as allowed by the proposed easement, two of which haverestricted development poEential and'.one o.f which_is not;included in the.conservation project: :\~>~R,~~sn[; a\ssocin rrs •'The. Banlla Prope,ty G 69 ,~.. ~ ,,. ' veloped from:. a natural" spring on .the property serving. the existing residence, ~~ a , , bound e and ranch com Ater asp There are 11so~„several other natural.spr`ings on the property, as well as several ,!'~, ~ small, ponds: A seasonal' creek runs through the property, emptying :into the headwaters of ' ,a ~~ Americano Creek.. The condition of the water source Eor the existing residence is unknown. Two r,.. ~S~ wells have recentl'y'been drilled and. capped on the subject property. The wells. both. produce ample ~ ~`'' water (40 gallons per minute,at 350. feet deep, ~arid 60 gallons per minute at 550 feet deep). One of ' the wells a ears to be within about fi pp fry Eeet of, the Sonoma'County Landfill site. The ranch ~~ ~ compound also has a developed septic and leach field system in use to the residence. ,,; , It is concluded that there is likely adequate water for rural .residential development on the ~''~'~; ' property. Similarly, the property should meet County requirements for septic system development. i, ' ~~'°~ ',Utilities are in use to the subject ranch compound and to neigJhboring properties, and could likely "~" ~~ be developed for residential use upon further development of'the subject property. ~. ' ~ ASSESSED VALUE' & TAXES ~,.~~ According to .the County of,;;Sonoma asses'sor's ,and Tax Collector's. Offices, current assessed values and taxes 'for the 2001-2002 Fseal year are as follows. There are noted to be no major special assessments on the subject parcel. Assessor's .Parcel Size Assessed Value - Total Taxes ' Number ~ ~ Acres Improvements Land 2002-2003 ,,,.,.. 027-080-007 S'14.70* $1'53;000 $555,095 $1,065.08 ' 027-200-002 1;48:74* 0 87,180 7,51.5.68 ~~ .. 027-210-002 292.15* 0 17:1.235 1 908.96 ~, r 955.59* $T53,000 $813,510 $10,489.72 ' *Per Soaoma'County'A.rrerror'r Reiordr TOPOGRAPHY ,,, " " ~' ~ '"" ' The s ,~'Robla°r- Roa'ar umto 690 f to gently, sloping, with elevations that ran a from sou hly 100 V ( g, ° g o , ,; ,, ~ ~ _ . n 1 ~~,,, meap b 1'ow illustrates the object's contourosVand elevattons~as well assthesgenereg). The top graphy a1 shape of the, tract. Du,e to the slopes and elevati'bris of ahe subject property, some views are very good -overlooking the surrounding hills of southwestern Sonoma County. ARII%I Plgn ' ' The 1980 Sonoma County aggregate Resource Management Pla"n (ARM Plan) was established to ' ' meet the coup s needs for rock, san ' ty' `' d and,gravel, while minuiuzing environmental impacts and land use conflicts. Th'e Plan. designated areas for potential quarries, in-stream and terrace areas where 7~ . ?. ~ ." „ ' AnerUUSni. ~~ssoctn'res •`TGe Bart!!a Pmpe7ty ~6 . ~ ~ 70 ,. ~„, . .~ aggregate mining could "take place. T1ie plan also set parameters and reclamation requirements- for future. operations,. Several areas throughout .the coup y "were identiEed, as potential quarry sites, including a portion. of the subject property. "I'he Rolilar Road Potential Quarry Site is 'situated on approximately 60 acres of the 'subject's northern „portion (north of the creek that runs through the homestead area and feeds Americano Creek)'. TOPOGRAPHY Mr1P t j ry ~4 ` ` .. Fj.. 1 d~ • ~ ` . 1 ~. .. y ,'r ~ r ` ~ \~ L ~ ! r-; r ) 1~. 1` ~ ~_ r G1, _ 11~F"r.. ~pl-~'~+.-,+ .~.a~il-.t >r ./ ~-, ,~ ~/ ~,:~_ _ r .. ~ ~~ L1f ~ __ ~ ` '~~ {cgct Prepam 'r~ i~ • I 1 .r• !~+ >,~ ~~T `"~/r~ ~,. ~i Rp ~ 'r~~ ~. t *tf. 1 ..~ar, ....5 ._~' ~ 1-:4,~. ~~ y.:t ~r-~' ~ . ~ ~,i - ~ ( eta T \ ~ • ~~.~~~ ~~'~ t - ~ i ;4r.,l ~.y;~`ak7+'l..s.si?~`r /'' ~ r:_~ ~ _~.rV,~a,~,l ~~,;; ~ 4~' .'--- ~ ~ L~r ~~ ~,:.:' ~ ?; C~B~- •~ 4 -.~.~ , ;. • i ~~ tti /fit'. ' / i ~!': ~.. '~ f~l . i ._; ~ rJ. ,/~ .., •~„ ~,', 1~ ~` 1 r. 1 sna ~_ \1M , ~tj ~ ~ y' \~ 1 ~ / .. c~ .~_' ~~/'r r / 1 ~~ 1`1 t+ I /~ \ •~I /~/~ ~ ~ S~_7A \ \ \ ~ J. A, ~' i'l F`~ f ` ~ r~. \ \ 1... } tM1~ ~ ~ r ~.c~ ~ ~ • ` ) , r ~ t r~- ~a ,v ~ > ~ \~ ~ ; 1 .. ~ ~ •-.. 1. J ~_ - C-~~~ ~~:- ry ~~, `~ 1 ~ r { t{ \ \ 1 ~~, .4 ~ ~ i/ alt: 1 `: r~ ( L9> it ~. ~`' _~'+-~ • .; 1•^' ` b~A ~ 1 ~ X ...,+s~ /:' t ~. ~, . l ~ ` '.1 ~• !;. '~-~i,,11 1 ~ ~J f 1 J `, ~ t I ~ ~ . •. Y ~ (^r ` ~ , r -~ Jr ,` ~~ `!/1 s r '1. ~. ....~. ~ . r.,i_! Y. .11.:.:1 -1 . .:: ,.. -i '' ;~ -~`~". r ,'. ~o/ ~ ,`.:., ~ ' / _ L ~, ~1PPRr\ISAL ASSOC[~1"['ES • The Baal/a'Propery. 27 71 ~ . The~~~previqus ,property owner (1vlx. ~ Scott)` reportedly had pu,rsited 'the possibility oE.removing rock 'from the site ~ '' ,, 'through Mr. Marv Soiland., I\-Ir. Soiland had attempted to .acquire a quarry permit, „ ,, but, opposition from the. neighborhoo,.d and numerous conditions and County requirements ended the process: ,tccording. to, NIr David Schiltgen of the Sonoma. County PR1~~1D, there have been two `; ' recent attempts to acquire a permit to mine the aggregate on the Roblar Road Site. Both applications ' ii ~ required ,an env_ironrnental impact report (EIR), one application was denied by the county, citing "''" ~ community opposition and environmental conflicts (including increased traffic on local roads), and ' '' the other a Gcation, wa$ withdrawn. Mr. Schtltgen reported that at the present time there is no Pp i current quarry application. at the county, but he believed .that the new owners are in the process of .,. preparing an application. Due .to the environmental and neighborhood opposition of previous ' attempts to establish a qu-trry on the subject site, as well as the ,general resistance to quarry sites ' ~ ~ ' throughout the county, it ts.coiicluded that the application process would likely take at least three to four years, and may not be approved. Estimating the aggregate value' of any future quarry potential ,,, goes beyond the scope of this, report. SOILS A Phase I Environmental`'Site Assessment was performed ,on the ranch in November 2001 by . I{leinfelder, Inc. of Santa Rosa, According. to the Assessment, the property includes rriainly (65%) soils series of Steinbeek Loam. Other soils include Los Osos series (±15%), Sebastopol Series (±10%), Clear. Lake series (±5%); and'' Blucher. series (±5%). Ivfost of these soils have rapid to moderate runoEE and a moderate to high erosion hazard. The Steinbeck soils. have'_a capability unit of IIde-1; and VIe-1 -depending on the slope (see below) and;Storie index ratings of from 20 to 5'8 (again depending on the slope). ,' The Steinbeck oils. are. generally moderately drained with- a slight to medium: erosion hazard. ,i~, Native cover consists of annual, and perennial;grasses ,and low shrubs. The more;,gently sloping soils • ,~,, (under 10% slopes) are generally suitable to most, forage, field and row crops and for. grazing by cattle and sheep: The steeper soils have a `'higher: erosion hazard and are typically used for grazing and range uses.. ccordtng to the Sor! Survey of Sonoma Coun ,Cali o .r I ' _ . ty j rnia (published in 1972• by the USDA in ~~~' coo ~eratton with the Universt of California the ma~ori „ ~ ,p. , ty ), ) ry of'the subject property soil. types are not ,~ ,: stable f su , or cultivated crops. The..Sol Suniey indicates That'water-- is typically available, but that the , i` ~ soils may ,'have problerns,orn,lmitations due to poor rapid runoff; and erosion'; and High :acid content. ro ~erties throw' hour western sSonomat C call Butted Eor `vine ard, develo ~ men tf is note" ' . P ltl~iou h .the sugblect properti oun with known sods' es with similar lirriita .that ty typ lions, iricliding.!properties within a. Eew miles of the subject are being developed with premium varietal ~~ ~ ~ vineyards. '~ ' ~ ZONING , Current (County of Sonoma) zoning 'Eor the property is LEA B6 1G0 Z (Land Extensive I, •, , i .~ ,., Agriculture, -see zoning ordinance, Addenda Exhibit C). The property has 1G0-acre density, and a . ,,~,; second unit exclusion.. ~• ~~ ~ , APPrt~(SnL,~sSOCt~~TES • The Bare!la Property ~g ,;+ ,, 72 ^, ~ , having legal access, 2) having approval for. an on-site sewage disposal. system• for at least aone-. bedroom residence; and 3) "having, an available water,supply.,. ~ , Based.`on surreys. performed by Howard Brudne's office; the sis ACC lots. range in size from just over 1:1 acres to just over 387 acres: in size. The map and table on the following page;indieate' the. locations and siie"s of the s',ACC loss. t1CC I~ir1I' APPRAISAL ASSOCIA7F5 e Tht`Bun((a Property Cert. No, Size (Acres) 1 11318 2 ~ 170.64 3 387.125 4 80.00 5 T9.86 G ~ 284.21 '30^ 73 i. i, ~' ~~ ~, ~, i ,,,, ~ , "~~ ~~ ,~ '„~si~e ,,, °'~ . a•.i ~ I ~;.~,„ , A . PROPERTY HAZARDS' , There are, nog known special hazards or toxic concerns on the:. subject property that have detrimental effect on the subject's. value: Based on the Environmental Site Assessment (performed ii by Kleinfelder and retained, in the appraisal file) there ,,:was at-,.one time a 500=gallon .buried Fuel ~= ~, storage tank on the property (removed~in 1.989), as well as four unused above-ground storage tanks, 4,. , evidence of hazardous chemicals and petroleum products in and around the shop building, and two.. ,.' ' debris piles on the sine. -.'None of these sites were concluded to "reveal evidence of a release of hazardous chemicals or petroleum products into the. ground, groundwater or surfacewater of the ~, ' site" and the' Wnited releases- that: were apparent "are considered. de minimir conditions that do no present a material risk of harm to the public health or the environment". The- Site .Assessment went on to. conclude that the adjacent landfill. did have some potential hazardous chemical releases, .but :,those. detected "are well below risk-based screening levels and regulatory action levels": 'The .potential affect of the landfill site on; he subject property was inconclusive due to the limited data .available. -specifically "because the data are limited and derived from a' monitoring system that is not capable of evaluating deep .groundwater conditions or the groundwater beneath the ire". ' ! The property is not located ~in a flood zone (the, property is within Zone X - an area determined to be.outside the' 500-year flood plain -per: FEIviA flood insurance rate map community panel Nos. 060375-835' and' -810): Due tb the access, topography and 'cover, the area could be hazardous in the event. of a wildfire: The property is outside any special seismic study zones, although there are astpe• faults nearby, and the area is .known to experience mild and sporadic .earthquake. activity. There are no -known or reported toxic concerns or substances on or in the property appraised. SITE IMPROVEI~iENTS .. ~ The property includes'. the previously mentioned wells, developed springs, septic system and access roads. In addition to the .these site improvements „there is perimeter and cross=fencing. throughout the.property,, including a recently installed fence line running north-south that separates :the property to be encumbered'by the easement into°hvo tracts (see'"After'Condition" map;~,page 4.7) STRUG'T[.JRAL!IMPROVEMENTS ~ „, . ` ~. The subleet property mdudes asingle-.family residence, a small cottage; a.large.barn and several I. q'~ agricultural outbuilduigs,:m va'rious' age; and condition: The value contribution to the subject property by any structural improvements-is not considered in this appraisal, as the proposed easement does not affect the'structural improvements. EASEMENTS AIVD RIGHTS OAF OTHERS According to Ivfr. John Barella, (the current property,,. owner) there has been no regular use of the subject property by;anyone, other than the property owners. Review of the Preliminary Title report ~, .„ i - rleeRnisn. Assoc~n~rFS o The Barr!!a Drape, y M ;,'', ~. , ~~.~~,~, ~~ 74 . ,~ ., ,. . .,, ~ ~ ~ , 3l ~;• provided (Addenda, Exhibit B) indicates that there are no easements over the property that affect the market v11ue of the subject property.: There is, a PGBcE easement over a portion of the 11nd a ~right~ of way for "access and road purposes"'and there' are hv~ (expized) leases ;fora "cut.and fill; sanitary disposal site' and ,;allied. uses" presumably over the portion of land now owned by ~ he County of Sonoma. These easements and leases, are considered. to 'be typical for rural. properties,. _1nd it; .is concluded that there are no apparent prescriptive rights over. or oii the property appraised. VINEYARD POTENTIAL No vineyard analysi's is' kn`own• to Have been performed on the subject property: The. property is_ not located'in'"an area_ known.. or sough[ for its vineyard d`eveloprnent potential..It is concluded that, althqugh vineyard 'devel'opment may be possible, it is 'not a `financially feasible use of the. subject property at this time. PROPERTY' HISTORY The Prelitiinaty Title Report provided indicates that. the property is: currently under ;the. ,ownership of John E. Barella, Trustee and' Andrea M..Barell~,; Trustee, under th'e' Barella. Family Trust Agreement dated December. 23, 1991:.. According:ao the County records„ the current owners purchased the .property in Qctober 20Q1_ for $5;300,000: The property has zeportedly been ,used ..for; cattle.. grazing since; the 1940's: There has been some negotiatign between the current; owner's and. neighboring property owners to purchase. portions of.the subject property, bur as of- th'e date of the appraisal; no purcbase contracts have, been filed and no agreements have been made: SITE CONCLUSIONS The subject property is concluded to beneft as rural.agricultural/~residental.land..from its: remote location; and good hoinesite areas, with easy access and expansive views. Other than. typical publie~ resistance to development ,in the.. western Sonoma .County area,' there .are. nb .known. detrimental. factors. tharaffect the subject,site. The subject property t~enefits' in that it includes six tldiniriistrative_ Certificates of Compliance; which can, be developed and sold as six separate legal parcels.. One of the ACC lots has the pbtendal'tbrough zoning to be splitinto two parcels: After consideration and discussion. with staff at,the Sonoma County PRIvLD; (inducting Traci Tesconi and. Angus Latta} the most logical development scenario for-'the subject property would be to develop the property using the six ACC. lots. As previously mentioned, the largest::-of the ACC' lots has• the potential for further division. through, zoning into two lots. The most'.likely development, scenario Eor this. property is estimated. to 'be through filing two .consecutive ..minor lot line adjustments {which are limited to. four lots); creagng a .total of up to,seven rural hornesites of at lease 40 acres in size. The existing layout of the t1CC :parcels (as illustrated on page 30) includes lots that .range .in. size from ±11 acre to more than 387 acres -and; is 'not the ideal .layout for the current. market: Re-aligning the existing. lots to .better meet market demand would `likely require at east one minorlot-line-adjustment, and also, as the property is under a.Type II Williamson ActPreserve;,each resulting;''parcel .would 'be subject to the. ~~(lilLairison Act. requizements, which include a. minirrium agricultural income of $2,000 per;year, and a mininiini'lot: size~of 40;acres: /APPRi11S~~i. !\SSOCIA'['F_S ~ T be Ban/!a Properly 3:2 75 ~ ~ ,N ;' . Filing two "consecutive minor ,'lot lir"-e, adjustments using, the e:cisting ACC's is :a relatively straightforward procedure, and is anticipated to take up to twelve to eighteen months to complete. ' Marketing, of the properties could.. begin immediately, and it'is concluded that the Pots would likely j ;, sell out within another twelve to ;eighteen months. Total time required for the project is concluded i .~ ,, to be twenty-four to thirty six months. ;~ Based on discussions with PRIvID staff, upon development of the "subject. property through the ,,, ~~ ' ~ ~~ r~CC's and lot sGne adjustment process, the county would likely .request that that owners of the I~ ' property apply for a phase out of the Williamson Act contract. '~ ~~ ^,~ :I~ ,~ ,1. ;„ ui I 4l i y ArertnrsnL Assocrn~rrs a The Bare!la P,nperry .~„ ,~, ,,.A„ ~, 76 33 III ~ I-IIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALY!S1S Thee highest and best use of a property is° the single usethat is° legally permissible, physically possible, appropriately supported, .financially feasible; and maurrially productive. Applying these conditions to all- the. possible uses `identifies the~~single use that. maximizes. value of the property.. Highest:and best use of a site that is `vacant grid available for development may be',different than the highest and best use of the same site developed with. improvements. •Highest and ,best use must therefore be estimated for both the site as though vacant and as presently improved. `in order to conclude, its ultimate best use. The highest:and best use conclusions provide a basis Eor the valuation sections to follow. The .1-lighest.and Best- Use conclusion that ..follows is for the subject property in its "as is" condition,. not ,including .the pottiori of the land. xo be •retained by the landowne"r. The following conclusion is made based on'the analysis of the data included in the previous sections of" this report. ' LAND AS' VACANT 1 Legally" Permxrible `. The subject;property is zoned within a Land Extensive: Agricultural District, which provdes::for protection of agricultural lands. The LEA. district :also allows very low-denrsty residential ~ development -one dwelling unit per 1GO aczes of land. The zoning; (as described on•,pages• 28-29) is the only .apparentaegal restrictions on the ,property. The. existing zoning would allow a variety of uses;. including divi"sion of the land into as man 1s six ..total 1`ots. The roe is also noted to be y ' p P rtY ,_ under a Type 2 Williamson Agricultur1ndra minimum otss ertain requirements including a minimal agricultural return to the. property, ize upon development. The sublecE's recorded .ACC's'. also indicate the :potential -for• development of the property into six lots, with- the ~ largest lot having further split potential through zoning. A portion of the property is also noted. to be within the County's Aggregate• Resource Management Plan -and is recognized. as a'potental site .for future aggregate rriining. However, two attempts; to applyforea permit to quarrythe,aggregate have failed, and the future potential, although certainly there,:is questionable.. Physically, partible Based on he recent developments of rural residential properties; in the neighborhood rural residential develop„ment is indicated to be: physically possible on [he land.. There has been a recent site assessment on the property and two wells Have, •recently been developed providing ample water for- rural residential use. Considering the size o'f the property and its location, it is assumed that additional wells could ,., • be developed, and that the property .would perk .adequately for residential development:. t11'PR.iS~~1: ~1SSOCiA'CES ~. The Bnrel/a Pmfieriy 34 77 ~~ • '~ °' AGRIC[1LTi]hAL '' PR'E'SERVA'~'lpiv ~'•, 6c.O;PEN SPACIs Q F :S~ T A j'1- C T ~~ . DA'pE .; .. „„T'O: FROM: February 26; 2004 (ll~ltg. 11~arch 4th) Open Space Authority Board Dv~ern'bea~ Andrea Mackenzie, General M[anagex SLJI~fEC'~': RobYar. Ranch - Expendt~~ to .4c~aire Consex~v~at3on Easement., ~ T Rer. on~aeaaaiec~ t~ctioi'~. A~ppxove ;Resolution: authorizaa~g expenditure for acquiSibion of ~ conservatlot~ easetz~ent over the Robber ranch Dast~ssaoa~ 747 Mendocino; Avenue JPronei'tV!C>lar~t~rislics . .' s~tee: roo ~~ sania Rossay cA' 9sao as o- ~ Roblar" Ranch as din approximately 956-acre 16vestoc&~ .gxazing. property locate wxth~n the Two Rock Valley FOCUS. Area, in the" Priorb Coastal - ty ~~ s ~ A ri ~alture d'esignation,;of Acquisftion Plan z0~:: The "surrannding area n ' ~~: ~a>> s65- !~3s9 co sa sts of rural sesdentflaT properties; dairies, and pasture ranches used for livestock,grazutg TDxe pro~rty is~ in the vicinity of several otteex District ~• agricultural conservation easeaneztts, i~]udng Martir-, t~lzevedo, Do-agan. and Vasila. The 'propeir~ty is visibDe from 41ie Valley Ford Road Scenic Corridor and cbntnbutes to the rural .open space character of'the couatty. ~~~ ,`"~ ~ The topograph consists of open meadowsand~gentIy rolling~~to moderate • P coastal~lulls that sup ort highly,,productive;grassland as well as"signiEi~ant i ~ . ~ stands of oak, and.rnixed hardwood forest: A, tributary of Anteritatto Cxeelc • erosses `the•westrern side of the property and die eastern slopes of the •~ property ;drain into the Stemple Creek/Esaero de San:,Antonio watershed. TIYe Steirotple Creek/>rstero de San,,.~~ntonio Watershed Enhancement Plan re y am far ~ Max~in and Southezrr Sonoona u ~, Cotanty Resource Conservatio , n Distirricts, ,1996) speciHcaDly recommends purchase of conservation-easements by agencies, irtclvdin$ the District, as a means of preserving and enhancing the watershed. On April 29, 2003 the Disbricthoard of 17irectors deteinmined tltatacquisition, ~~~ ~ of.a Conservation easement over Roblar Ranch is consistent with Qhe 1;989. ' ~ ~ ~ Sonoma County General Plan. • Pro(~*ct Dgsig_n The project is the acquisition of an unlinnited agriculturaD conservation easement, over 758 acres of the property. and excludes a 197-acre portion which ;houses• the- existing ranch structures and a potend~aD. quarry site identified. within the Sonoma County Aggregate Resources Management Plan. Designated "Natuxal'Resource Areas'' wi11 pxntectthe oak and mixer! ] oaf Z A-TTAC~IMDvIV'I' 1 78 hardwaod;foq±es~. Two parcels, eachv-+tte ~ permitted home sift=; wfilJl be rid unde$ the conservation easement. The- Barella family is see$oda-ting~ sale of the two petrels encp~bered' encith agricultural conservation e*_asemerits to ffie lwo ne~~borng daiay . fanners; the;~VVilson and Treseh families. These families: a~,;senong~dte largest daisy . prodl8rers remaining in the.eounty and are.eager foe tote opportunity toJacquu~e additiortai 8'S land adf scent bo their rantl~es., The ;property," owner will record' a pending: iot Bate adjustexoeint sin-ultdneously ~witlt the Districts purchase of tfie~conservatiou e?asemegt'whfch will:result,iut:a bq~l of tha+ee legal panels two of which will be encumbered by t1~-e conse~vataon easement: A;~oraisal.l[nfurmation:and_Purchase Price A full' narrative~appraisal was conducted try Chris Bell.of Appra~sal~Associates;with a date of va1•uabon~of ~etober 6, 2003: The_appraiser' deb~rmined-tkuet'the highiestend,.t-est~use o;f the propea`ty before acqu#sition of the, conservation eas~eaeent was .,for development "iintu seveia:ru.ral residential ho~e~sites: After acquisition o~ tltiis~ease~eatt~ tk~~highest~~and best else of'the~propetty"was for three raral residenttal~'~houee sites, wth'two~of those home saties situated wi4hin tleconservation:easecxtettt~area;:and,o~ outside the conservation e~se8lent _ .. area. 'The appraiser'conciuded the:estfmate~.market value of tt~econ5ervatlon eas~ettt to be $x,670;000. District staff: rovievved the appraisal' and.. corucluded nt. meets the District's Appraisal Standards and. Guidelines. 't'he Open Space ,;Authority re~riewed and approved ;tlte appraisal at,its January xS; 2004 meeting and;provi~ed direction regardngaaegotiatoo~ns to, District: tiff. Staff has negotiated °a re~onnmended. purchase ;price ®f ~$2,26950U •for pu~+chase of the: canserva'~ion;easeiutent;.representirig:a dxscountof~00,~OQ~ar 15~- less than the appraised value. ,.~....~,.,~~.~ 2 of 2 79 ~. I ~ r f'fA'R-31-2010 05.:4:4 PM AKIN GILLIS DVM 707 A 8091 ..,•r~m l ''~~~~~ f' ~~ ,: u r~ o a O ^ ~ ay 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 01 d ~ r NM'` ~ ~~ ~ a b N .i y ~~ ~, ~~ «f ~~ ~,_ , ~ ~ ~. ~, H .~ yr 01 A i ~ ~ ~ ~~ W ~W~g1 ® v,a~ ~4~ ~ ~ ~ a . ~ ~ a w . ~~ ~ ., a ,~ v ~~ ~ ~ ti ~, ,_~ ~~ ~' O I yC,~.,~ .. ~L C V ,, 4 a GC ~ ~' E~°' ~ U o ~~. " o'~~ ~'°~ ~:. a u `~ $ ~p aE C ~ a.~.M W g,,, (;~ Q., rA ~ A .I°, n , r, ,~ ~ N 8 N N ~. N ~ C~ v y pQ 00 . ~ pp~~ ~D ~ ~.,~ ~ 1 N M ~`' N N H . A N ~' ~ W F ~ ~~ o z ., © m' , z ~.~ z a 3 ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ T y ~ U ~~ ~ a =_ x V Z ~ z U cagy .F ~ ~ ~ a w 3 ~, d z Li: ~ F ~ F # O ~ W ~ w ~ w a F 8~~ O 4~ b R '~ ' d 3~ ~~ vv ed gF ~U ~~ ~ ~~• A ~ ~ ~ z ~~' ~, ~' ~: ~, ~ ~ a ~. a a .~ • z ~: Z. -o°. a ~~ r. WO (-~ ` ~ V Q~ ~ ~ zz T W d U U ~~ ~ ~~ o "~ on L+ xu ~ v ~. oa P. 01 ., ~ ,, ~~~~ / Page l:of2 P~aria Cipriani - Re:: Roblar Road ~_ 'Iag~ iFrom: Scott Briggs ~ V T®: ..Jacobsen,: Charisse ®ate: 12J18/2007 2;36 PM Subject: R~e Roblar Road , CC: Barrett, Jennifer; Cipriani,, Maria; Gallagher;, Sue; Hurst, David thank you Charisse. Would you please pass on to Steve one final issue which may require changes to the letter in .its current form. Specifically, last VUPdnesday a number of us met with John Barella about this project here at FRMD, and. at this meeting John showed us preliminary engineering drawings of the proposed haul route across~the Wilson property. What these drawings show is a modified coal design, such. that thee western end` of'the proposed haul.. road across the Wilson property now Intersects with Roblar Road in • ~ e h I road is .curved in a wayari pp owmate T intersection. To ac a r compllsh, thls, th ~._au cement over an are whlcfl will' require that the Open Space District, release its conservation ea _ _ a of the g ut b P referenced in the letter This was the'"f rst Wilson: property -somewhat ~lar er than the 3 acre we had hear nge (broughonabo y ubllc Work's Departments concerns, with ;proper site istance at this intersect', ) I mentiorted ~at this meeting that this modified .haul road route would impact;;mo.re than he 3~ cares we ,had ,been assuming:,. but I do not know exactly what this acreage will be:~ Since we do snot yet, have a copy .of .the proposed haul road engineering drawin s, Y su gest that Steve work with North Bay' Construction to calculate the g 9 • area of the Wilson parcel that will be 'needed; 'and then. modify the letter accordingly: Thank you Charisse, and please have Steve give me, a call `(707-565=83.51) if he has any questions about this. Scott Briggs Scott R. Briggs Environmental Review '.Manager Sonoma County PRMD 2550 Ventura Ave "- Sarnta Rosa,. CA 95403 707-565=8351 ~ ~~ »> "Charisse,Jacobsen'' zcjacobsen@cfk com> 12%18/20:07 1:16 PM » Please see attached letterregarding Roblar Road Quarry: ' Charisse Jacobsen, .Secretary: to Stephen K. 'Butler Clement, FitzpatricK & Kenworthy 3333 Mendocino Avenu$, Suite 200 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707)523=1x81 Fax (707) 546-1360 file://C;CDocuments and Settings~neiprian~L,ocal SeBi~gs\Temp\GW}-00002HTIvI 12/18/2007