Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 3.ALate2 10/18/2010;y~. ~ .:~ „N , ~ ~ ,~' ~ A Date: To: From: October 19, 2010 at 2:30 pm Board of Directors Bill Keene, General Mariager Subject: Roblar Ranch Conservation.Easement: Request for Exchange,and Request for Amendment I. Back~round On May 2~1, 2004, the Sonorna County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District (District) acquired a Conser~ation Easement ("Ranch Easernent"; on file with clerk) over the 757:7-acre Roblar Ranch property aTong Roblar Road ("Easement P-roperty", see Attachment 1). The purpose of the acquisition was' to preserve the property's agricultural, sceriic, and natural resource ~alues. The property is ~characterized by rolling;hills with grassland, oak woodland and riparian woodl`and, and contains~approximately'one-half mile of Arnericano Creek as we'll as two of its tributaries. At the time of the acquisition, the Easement~ Property was owned by the Barella Family Tru"st, The fee interest was subsequently divided and transferred to two aonservation buyers on June 1~4, 2004, both of. whom still hold .title. The western 388J-acre parcel is owned by " Ken and Clairette Wilson, who use their property;for cattle grazing ("the Wilson Property"); the eastern 358.9-acre parcel is owned by Joe.and:Kathleen Tresch, who likewise use their pro~~erty for cattle grazing ("the Tresch Property"). Each parcel has agricultural roads and ponds but no structures. ' Although the Barella Family Trust no longer owns the Easement Property, it does currently own 200; acres ;irnmediafely ~north- of the Easement P.ropertp. John & Andrea, Barella now seek. to develop a 70-acre commercial quarry on that northerly site ("the Quarry Property"). An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") has been prepared for the proposed quarry. After evaluating several alternative access routes, the EIlZ identifies the; construction of a haul road across the Wilson Property as the environmentally superior alternati~e route for commercial quarry trucks to access Roblar Road.: On September 16, 201'0 the. Sonoma County Planning Commission, on a unanirnous vote, recommended that .the Board of Supervisors approve the project, including this environmentally preferred alternative. . The Ra_nch Easement, however; limits roads on the Wilson Property to those necessary for on-site residential and agricultural uses. Without eitlier an amendment zo the Ranch Easement or an exchange of property, the Rancli Easement would preclude construction of' the pr.oposed quarry access road. ~ On,July:21, 2010,, the District received a letter from the•;project applicant's attorney., Stephen Butler (Attachment 2), requesting an exchange of property under Public Resour;ces Code ~ 5540.5 ("Request for Exchange"~. _ ~By that same letter, the projecr applicant also re.quested clarification of or amendment to the Ranch Easement to allow for the establishment of ;a 105-acre California.T-iger Sal~amander (CTS) and California Red-legged Frog (CRLF) preserve on tlie Wilson P-roperty ("Request #or Amendment''). . Ori August 31, 2010, the District received a letter (dated August 12, 201'0, Attachment 3') ;from property owner Ken Wilson, joining the applicant's xequests. The applican"t's requests wererefined in subsequent communications (see:Attachments 4& 5). IL Itequest 'for Exchan~e ~ ~ ~ Publie Resources Code 'g 5540.5 allows for an, exchange of up to 40 acres per year of lands . dedicated to open space,'"for real property, or =an interest'in real propertp, that zhe board of directors determines to b~e-of equal or;greater value and is necessa ,ry to be:acqui`red f'or park or op.en-space purposes; or b.oth park and open-space purposes:" Unanimous approval of the District's $oard of Directors is required for any "exchange under. ~'S54.OS. In, lirnited circumst_ances; the;District's Board of Directors has approved exchanges pursuant to this Co,de: in the,past. " A. ,Description of Proposed Exchan~e of Property The Request for Exchange includes the following:_. 1,. The;'District would release 3.3 acres from "the Ranch Easement for a p`eriod.of 20years; in order to a11ow for the construction and use of a haul road aeross the Wilson Property. o When the 20-year quarrying•activity is compl'eted,.the road-w,ill be rernoved,and the site restored to its natural condition. ~.At that tirrie; the landowner will re=convey the Conservation Easement over the 3.3 acres "to the District without #urther' compensation, 2 N~ . ~~. ~~ f' ~ I . ~~ I I .~ , ~ ,i 2. In exchange,..the Barella Family Trust would: "~ ~` a. Convey to the District a conservation easemenr over the entirety of the ~~ Quarry Property, including the 70-acre quar ,ry site ("Quarry Site'') and the ~~ ,? • remaining 130 acres which will not be quarried ("Quarry Property Easement"). ~ ~ The :Quarry ;Property Easement. would restrict use of the 130 acres to open space, endangered species preservation, and agr.icultural purposes. • The,Quarry Property Easement wouldallow for quarrying on the 7Q acres ,for, _a period of twenty years. At the end of. the twenty years; use of the 70 acres would,;also be restricted to open space, enda,ngered species preservation, and agricultural purposes. b. Convey to the~ County or the District an irre~ocabie offer to dedicate the fee interest in the 200-acre Quarry Propert,y at the termination of the 20- year quarrying activity and completion of. reclarnation. c'. Convey to the District a conservation easernent over a 244-acre hay ranch . owned'by the project applicant, located alorig the.Petaluma River near Lakeville Rqad ,("Lakeville:Property", see Attaehment 6~. The easement ("Lakeville Easement") would restrict use of the Lakeville Property to agricultur.al use and/or natural resources preservation. B. . Analysis of "Proposed,Exchange 1. ~ Issues Surroundin~ Release of 3:3 Acres of Ranch :Easement ~~~ The ~request ineludes -the temporary release of approximately 3.3 acres iri the northwestern corner of the Wilson Property from the Ranch Easement for a period of 20 years (see Attachrnent 7). The site inaludes acfive' pasture and approximately 14Q0 feet of Americano Creek, :as well as the confluence of both: tributar'ies on the Wilson Froperty. This stretch of Arnericano C'reek is characteri`zed by mature arroyo willow t'rees and a few unvegetated stretches with erosive banks associated with cattle grazing. The confluenee of the northern tributary (referred to as "Ranch Tributary" in the EIR~ is characterized by dense riparian woodland, while the confluence :of the: southern tributary (referred to in the EIR as an intermittent dra.inage) is devoid of all vegetation and is highly eroded. ppe ro osal~ncludesl constructiori of a haul road arallel to Americano Creek, set back P P P a roxirnatel `50-60 feet from the creek, as well as a railroad car bridge over Ranch Tributary and' a culvert crossing o~er ehe southern tributary. The proposal; includes release of the Ranch Easement over the haul.road as,well as A~mericano Creek and its riparian area, and the confluence of' both tributaries. 3 , , ~ ,, ~ . , , , , ~ ~. , ~ , ~ . . The District;acqui.red the Ranch Easement under the Agri`cultural Category of its Acquisition Plari 2000, as' an unlimited agricultural easement. While the primary:purpose: of ihe Ranch Easement is to preserve ,the: Property's agrieultural. values, preservation of its sceriic: and natural resource values, including specifically the ""riparian areas.as"sociated with,Americano Creek;" are also listed in the Raneh,Easement.Purpose sr.atement (Paragraph 1. of Ranch Easement). ~To understand: the sigiiificance of the proposed release. of th'e 3.3 acres; it; is therefore -necessary to evaluate its impact on the Property's agricultura~l values, ~scenic ~alues and ~natural resource values. ~ . a. Irnpact on A~ricultural V"alues T-ke 3.3-acre portiori ,is currently used as livestock~ pasture. Accordirig to property owner Clairette Wilson, this use would continue dur`ing the 20-year period. Therefore, the proposed exchange woul'd appear to .have no significant impact on the property's agricultural values. b. Tmpact on Saenic Values The~proposed<eXChange is:noilocated wit.hin the viewshed of the Val'ley Ford Scenic. Corridor; which is specifically menti'oned in the Ranch Easement Purpose. It will thus have. no'impacts on that viewshed. Howe~er, tfie use -of, fhe `X~ilson Propert;y for .quarry truck traffic could impaer;the views of the Wi:lson Property from Roblar Road, particularly in those sections; where:Arnericano Creek is devoid of riparian. vegetation. Although Roblar Road is not a designated scenic corridor; staff recommends that°these visual 'impacts'be~minimized b.,y restoring tlie=riparian area with nati~e vegetation prior to use ofthe road. c: Impact on `Natural Resource Values The Ranch Easement desigriates the Wilson and Treseh Pr.operties' oak,'woodlands and. riparian, areas along Americano and Sternple Creeks as "Natural Resource Areas", within which structures ~arid agricultural' cultivation are prohibited. ~ ~ Temporary release of the:Ranch Easement over Americano Creek would remove the District's jurisdiction over this designated Natural Resoiirce Area du "ring. the 20-year period. of quarrying activity. Therefore, the District would.lose. any~a6ility to ensure continued :preservation of the natural' resouree values grotected by°the Ranch Easement. Tlie ETR has:fully.analyzed the~p:otential environmerital impacts of the proposed haul road and has identified mitigation measures°to reduce such impacts to less than significant. (See, for example, E.8c, E:8e, E:8f.,) However, to protect "the District's interests under the Ranch Easement;,the D-istrict requests;; • the projeet des_'ign~be.,.modified,such .that the District retained the Ranch Easement over. Americano Creek and its riparian:ar"ea, and 4 ,. ~~ „~i . ~ ~ , ~ , J'ti,~, ~ ~ . , ~ i ~ instead .temporarily released th~e Ranch, Easement over the right-of- way itself, an approximate,,50 foot,'wide:strip of land through the Wilson Property (see Attachment 8); , ~ m the, road be constructed in a way so, as to minimize:impacts to ~~ Arnericano Creek, ineluding cornpliance with the guidelines set forth iri Pacific Watershed Associates' I Iandbook for Forest and Ranch Roads; ' s the unvegetated sections of Americano Creek.be restored with native vegetation as discussed in Section b. abo~e. This alternative design vcwould reduce the exchange area from 3.3 acres to 2.0 acres. In addition, District staff notes that so'ils at this site are~~considered potential~ly erosive by the Natural Resources Conservation Service,. Further, Americano Creek is listed on the North Coast Regional Water Quality',Contr.ol Board's 303(d) list<as:;an impaired stream, due to excessive sediment and nutrients. IDistrict staff recognizes°that the~current design of the haul road, set back more thari 50 feet frorn the Creek, fully meets the County's General Plan standards. Nevertheless, to provide ;ad'ditional protection, District staff requests that the haul road be located farther frorn top of bank°than.is currently proposed, farther from the soil types with designated ,erosiv.e potential. Planting of vegetati'on vvithin this buffer would further help to ensure that sedirnent does not enter the stream. 2. Issues Surroundin~ the.Exchan~e Properties i ' n,u ., ~ . ,q, w , , , ,~,i. ~lil a. Conveyance of conservation easernent over the Quarry Property In exchange for the proposed xempqrary:release of 3.3 acres from, the Ranch Easement, the Barella Family Trust proposes to convey a coriservation easernent in perpetuity over the eritirety of the Quar'ry P'roperty, including~"the 70-acre Quarry Site and the remaining 130 acres which will not be quarried. i. Conservation easement over 70-acre 'Quarry Site Aft`e'r coinpletion of quarry activities and reclarnatiori, the B`arella,Family Trust would convey to the District'a>conservation easement over the reclaimed 70 acres. The easement would . • preserve;the~land for agricultur,e, public recreation and/.or natural resource protection. Because the conservation easement will not be conveyed for-a period of twenty years, the value of ihe easernerit is difficult to dete'rmine and therefore~cannot be relied upon to support the exchange. ii. Conservation easement over remaining 130 acres Prior to conveyance. of the progosed conservation easement, the project applicant intends to plaee a California Department of. Fish & Game ("CDFG") easement on the 130 acres as ~ 5 . _ _ ~ , mitigation for impacts ,of the quarry on CTS and CRLF.: Typically; GDFG easements require that the property remain-. forever in its natural, restored, or; erihanced condition and prohib`it agricultu"ral activities of any kind except grazing for~vegetation managernent,: District staff conducted a prelirninary site' assessment of the Q.uarry Property last February and`:obsei=ved''valuable natural. resources on the;site, including oak. woodland/forest, with Californi'a black oak„ coast 1'ive~oak, Californ,ia`bay, coffeeberry=and'a variety of mushrooms; mature ripariari vegetati"on along Americano C'reek with California bay, .Californi'a black oak, willow; and ferns; significant annual grasslands; a srnall Califo.rnia bay woodland; freshwater seeps;, and ~irriportant wil.dlife habitat: ~ ~ It' is ~anticipated tliat each of these natural. features will be fully protected under the proposed CDF.G easeme.nt. Tlie ro osed conservation easennent over the 130 acres would thus be; P P . largely duplieative of the required CDFG easement~ and, therefore,; would offer little; if ,any, added conservation value to the Distr-ict'. ~ b. Future conveyance of fee trtle:to the Quarry.Property The projecr applicant lias offered to ,convey fee "title to the, 200-acre Quarry Property to the County or'the; District at the end of the 20-year quarrying activity and sub"sequerit. reclamation. The-Sonoma,County General Plan 2020 designates a planned park in°the vicinitp of~th'e Quarry ~P.roperty. ,A:comprehensive assessment to evaluate the recreatiorial' poxential of the Quarry Property has not been conducted. Other poteritial future uses~ of'the property may include agriculture,: habitat preseivation or other public .use. The. conveyance oul w~ d take ~th'e form of :an irrevocable offer to dedi"cate fee title tq the County or District: The County or Distric't would have th'e option to acceptF fee title when and 'if it ;d'eemed ~ appropriate after reclarnation is eompleted. c. Conveyance of conservation easement over the Lakeville Pr.op:erty Distriet_ s,taff conducted a prelimina .ry. site assessment of the Lakeville Propert,y on Octo6er 6, 2010 and observed'the following features: o IVIajor'ity of the,property acti~el'y.used for hay product'ion; . ~ . • Straw-wattTe operation'for°erosion.control projects, • Significant, avian ~activity, 'including foraging'rap"tors (Northern Harrier; Red-tail Hawk, arid Amer-ican Kestrel) :and potential ;raptor nesting habitat (euca'lyptus groves); o. Adj"acency to the~PetaYuma River and coastal b.raekish marsh hab'itat; •. a Adjaceney to otlier protected lands, including the District's Sleepy Ho11ow D:aiiy Conseryation Easernent; ~ Improvements, includi`ng _a 4-bedroorn farmliouse~ large hay barn, and a 4-car garage; • Potential for marsh restor.ation. A coriseruation easemerit over.the.Lakeville Property.`would further the District's goals given ihe ,f oll'owing: ~ 6 , , i. Property features and designations ' The Lakeville"Property has a number of features which make it significant for protection. The California Natural Diyersit'y Database ;identifies the Coastal Brackish 1Vlarsh community and,seven species of special concern~ including California Black Rail, California Clapper Rail, and the salt-marsh harvest mouse within the immediate vicinity. The property is designated wet;lands by the LJ.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National.Wetlands Inyentory. The Nature Conservancy has.ranked the property as a"Core" in need of protection: Neighboring preserved lands include the Distriet's Sleepy Hollow Dairy Conservation Easement, the Sonoma Land Trust's Lower''Ranch Conservation Easement;.and CDFG's Petaluma Marsh Wildlife Area. ~ ii. Identification in County and District Adopted Plans The Lakeville Property is identified iri the Sonoma County General Plan 2020 as including lands lying within a Biotic Habi'tat Area (the Marshes and Wetlands area for Petaluma River Marsh~, a Scenic Landscape Unit,, and a Special Status Species Habitat ,for the Burrowing Owl. The property lies within the Petaluma Valley groundwater basin and contains three designated streams. In addition, .the protection of the Lakeville Property would fulfill numerous objectives of the Water, Wildlife and Natural Areas category of the District's acquisition plan, Connecting Communities and the.Land. It supports healthy aquatic habitat. in rivers and streams, is in an area critical to watershed ~~ function becau.se it provides the opportunity to preserve and restore wetlands and floodplains,, and lias habitat important for the aonservation and restoration of threatened and endangered speeies including streams, wetland;and rnarsh. In addition, the protection of the property would fulfill objectives of :the Greenbelts and Scenic Hillsides category in tliat it contains •prominent natural features that contribute to the unique identity of the City of Petaluma and the Goun"ty of `Sonoma. 3. Citizens' Advisory Committee The Citizens' Advisory Cornmit.tee held~ a special. meeting.on October 7, 2010 to discuss the applicarit's proposal; At that ~meeting, committee members stated their opposition to the proposal, particularTy with~ respect to the precedent that would be set should the exchange be approved. They exp_resse.d;.concern that such.an action would compromise the.integrity of perpetual, conser~at'ion easemerits :and erode the public's trust. While committee mem6ers reeognized that the Board has previously approved exchanges under Pub`lic Resources Code ~ 5540:5, the Committee was particularly concerned with the private commercial benefit associated witli;the.ap;plicarit:'s, pro_posed exchange. At the meeting, rnembers of the public spoke. out against the.„exchange. At~ the conclusion of the meeting, tlie Committee voted to send a letter, toxhe,Board advising against the exchange~. 7 C. Recomrnendation While District staff has concerns about the precedent that:could:be set by the proposed exchange, the, haul road through the, Wilson P"roperty has :b'een 'identified as the' . environmentally superior alternative :for access to ;Roblar Road. Placement of`fhe liaul r.oad. across ;1:7001ineal feet of the Wilson Proper€y, ratlier than along'Roblar Road.itself,,could' ~ avoid si ~" ~gnificant adverse iinpacts "that rnight otherwise occur with the quar :_ry ~project., Therefore, should the B'oard of Supei-visors approve the quarry project;.the.District General Manager recomrnends~ that the District Board o'f Directors approve the Request for Exchange subject to the following conditioris: ~ Release: of Ranch Easement on portion of the Wilson Property ~ District retains Ranch Easement over Americano ~Creek, its riparian area,, and a suitable buffer, and simply release the Ranch:Easernent over an approximate 50-foot strip of land; . ~ ~ I-Iaul; road is constructed so as to `rninirnize impacts to Americano Creek, including. cornpliarice w-ith the guidelines set forth in Pacific Watershed Associates-', Handbook for Forest and.Ranch Roads; ~ Unvegetated, riparian area of Americano Creek is revegetated to reduce scenic impaets of haul road prior to quarry trucks using, the haul road; • Both..tributaries are restored with native vegetat'ion near haul road: crossings when road: is removed after 20-year quarrying activity. . In additi'on, the Dist~rict General Manager recommends that the haul road be set back at least:` 100-feet from.top of bank of Americano Creek. ~ Conveyance of conser-vation easement over the Quarry Sate ~m District receives a conservation easement oVer the ZO-acre quarry site at the end of the 20-year quarrying activity and only after compleiion of all. required -reelamation; m District staff`recognizes that•the value. of an easement to the District °over the 130 acres 'would be minimal.in light of the proposed CDFG easernent and'therefbre recornmends that fhis area be excluded from the Quarry Property Easement. Conveyance of fee title~to the Quarry Property s The project applicant immediately conveys an offer°to dedicate fee title. of the'.Quarry "Property to the County or the District at the end of the 20-year quarry.ing activity and subsequent reelaination. ~ ~ Conveyance of conserUation easement over the Zakev'ille Property ~ District'receives a conservation easement ouer the 244=acre Lakeville P"roperty concurrent with r-elease of the acreage require_d for th~e ~haul road; 8, i ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ , ~ ~„~ ; , , . ,. I q' I di~. d ' ' ,~ ~u,, , , i r~ ~ The conservation ~easement.:allows for agriculturaT use ~as well as natural resource. enhancement and restoration; • A building envelope is d`esignated to restrict the location of structures. III. Request for Amendment A. Description of Proposed Amendment The project applicant has further requesied that the District clarify or amend the Ranch '`''' Easement to allow' fqr the establishment of a:105-acre CTS/CRLF preserve on the Wilson ~ Property as shown on Attachinerit 9("Requested Preserve Area"). The establishment of the . preserve would include (1) the expansion. of an existing stoek ~pond on the Wilson Property, ' (2) the construction~ of a riew stock pond (.15 to .25 acre) ori the Wilsori Property, and (3) the conveyance of a more~restrictive conservation easement over a,portion of the Wilson Pro.perty to the California Department of Fish & Game ("CDFG") or US Fish & Wildlife Service. Under the Public Resources Code~ an arnendment to a conservation easement may be approved with a majority vo'te of ~the District's Board of Directors. B. Analysis of Prop._o_ sed Ainendment 1. Con's'istency with Conservation Easernent District staff has determined that .the proposed es"tablishment of an off-site mitigation preserve on the Wil`son Property i`s inconsistent with ~at least two exp'ress'provisions of the Ranch Easement, and perhaps others. First; the`proposed use of the property for a CTS/CRLF preserve w;ill require recordation of a new restrictive easemeni in favor'of CDFG. The Ranch Easerrient, however, allows recordatiqn of new third-party easernents only "where they°will remove or significantly lessen the impact of existing easements of record on the protected values..:'' (Easement Exhibit B, Paragraph,7~,. S'ince the new CDFG easement does not replace or reduce the impact of any existing easerrient of record, it i's not permitted under the plain language of the Ranch Easement. ~ , ' ~ Second, the Ranch Ea_'sernent~ expressly prohibits any `non-agricultural commercial use of the Property~ (Easement Exhibit C, Paragraph 1~.. Use of property as mitigation for off-site development is a non-agricul"tural' commercial use, and thus, again, is not permitted. The proliibitions against new third party easements and against non-agricultural commercial uses ap,pearto be designed°to lielp to ensure that the primary purpose of the Ranch Easement - preservation~of the property for agricultural purposes -- is;maintained. The Ranch Easement states that its purpose is to "primarily preserve °the Property's productive .,~ ~~~~ , 9 ,. ~ , ~ ., . n~i~. -. ~ „ .,~ ,,;!, ,, „~ , . ,~,, .~, , ~ , , . ,., agricultiiral soil"s, agricultural ~iability and produetivity, ~and the Property's size, such that it remains large enough to sustain an economically viable agricultural operation.." That being said; however, the purpose of the Ranch-Easerrient also inelud'es p"rotection of ",the ,natural resource values o.f the Property" and prohibits "anyuse that would impair~: degrade, or .. darnage these values". If the mitigation proposal could be designed to substantially further that purpose, whiTe minimizing:impacts to th.e agricultural values of the property; the requested amendment could be deemed appropriate. 2. Proposed Amendment The District's E"asement Amendment `Policy, set f.orth in the Board approved.20Q5 Stewardship'Manual (on file with clerk), states that:, • The,District shall approve_.amendments to conservation easements only wher,e there is,a,clear beriefz't to the..D'istr.iet and its conservation goals,• ~. o The Dutrict shall approve amendinents'to conservation easements. only ~eiher.e. the~amendment is consistent with law; za~ith adopted -District policies ana' zr~ith the conservation pu;rpose of the. easement; dni~ ~ ~. Amendments to provide for ad`ditional natuxal'resource~protection shall be,.permittedpxovi,dedthat such additionaLpr'otection does not dimin'ish or otl?erwu`e; impair the conservation values of the. land. The proposed;;Preserve Area is at the riorthernmost,e~ctent,of the Wilson Property, bounded by Roblar Road to the west and the Tresch Propert:,y to the east, and includes uplarid grassland, oak woodl_and,, seasonal drainages, and portions of Americario Creek~ and Ranch TributaryTtliat. 'include riparian vegetation such as willow and Oregon asli. The riparian areas and oak woodlands are identified in the Ranch ;Easement as Natural Resource; Areas,~ within which:no,.structures can.be built or permanent crops-planted. Creation of the Preserve would clearly benef'it:°the natural res _ource values of tlie Wilson Property .by providing,additional protection qf habitat for CTS and .CRLF. O,n the other hand, establishrnent ~of the rPreserve Area could_ restrict agricultural use of the Wilson Property ~in perpetuity. Typically; CDFG easements prohibit agricultural activities of any kind except grazing,for vegetation management. The proposed configuration of'the Preserve includes significant ac.reage of open grassland, grassland currentlyused for dairy and beef cattle, grazing; Those open lands also present opportunities, for other future agricultural uses. Recordation of'the CDFG easement could elimiriate those possibilities, thereby diminishing the agricultural values of the property. The: District's Amendment Policy prohibits ;~. . ainendments that would "diminish or otherwise impai,"r.tlie conservation values :of the land: " As currently proposed, the requested<amendrnent tlierefore~,would not comply with the,District's Ameridment Policy. ~ 10 r, ~~' ~I ~. ~ ~ ~ " . , ~ ~i,,i~...'1' . ' . ~ ~ ~ ~ru ~ I ~~ i~~.., ,. . i . . ~m~ ,I,., . ~ ; ~ . i i ,'f the proposed Preserve Area were reconfigured.to focus on those areas, called,out ~. ~~~ .'~ ~~ "~ ~ , ~ ~ How~ever i _ ~ ` ~ for protection under tlie. Ranch Easement, the amendment may enhance rather than diminish ,.~ .. "° ''"' the property's conservation values. If the Preserve Area were reconfigured to include only ~; . , " the riparian areas and existing oak woodland tree canopy, along with an assoeiated 250-foot ' buffer, then the key natural resource values expressly.identified in the Ranch Easement would be enhanced wliile potential impacts to the agricultural values of the property would be minimized. The reconfigured Preserve Area, still encompassing appro~mately 1,05 acres, would allow for the restoration and'•regeneration of the riparian and oak woodland habitat, and would strengthen the permarient protection of the property's natural resources (see Attachment 10). The reconfigured Preserve Area may therefore be found to be consistent with the Easement Amendrnent Policy. Allowing use of conservation easement properties for mitigation, however, raises several broader policy implications and has been the subject of considerable debate in recent years. Amending the Ranch Easement to allow for CTS and CRLF mitigation on the Wilson Property may set a precedent for other conservation easements. Lands conserved for agricultural purposes, like'the Wilson.Property, may'be targeted fbr conversion to mitigation, due to their lower cost (their development values'having already sold). Yet many of these conserved lands are recognized as key agricultural.resou'rces, important to the continued viability of agriculture in the County. In individual cases, the conversion of such conserved lands (or portions of such land) may be insignificant, but together, they may result in a cumulative loss of the County's permanently protected farmland, lands under conservation easements. Although Distriet staff recognizes the risks of allowing mitigation on protected lands, staff believes that, under these circumstances, the reconfigured Preserve Area - focused solely on the riparian areas, oak woodlands and appropriate associated buffers - eould strengthen the permanent protection of the~ natural resource values specifically called out in the Ranch Easement, without significantly impacting.the property's agricultural values. In addition, the reconfigured area would also.,meet the 105-acre rnitigation area requested by the project applicant. Accordingly; the amendment to allow for mitigation could be beneficial to the property's protected values. C. Recommendation , ~ . TheDistrict G"'eneral Manager~~has determined that t:he proposal for a CTS/CRLF preserve on the Wilson Property is not consistent with the existing terms of the Ranch Easement, and cannot: be allowed without an easement amendment. Further, the General Manager cannot recommend.that theDistrict Board of Directors approve an amendment to allow the CTS/CRLF preserve as currently proposed, as it may diminish or impair the protected agricultural values of the property. 11 The Gerieral Manager, hocvever, believes that if the P"reserve Area is reconfigured as recommended by staff; an amendriierit to allow establishment of the preserve wquld be acceptable: . ~ Qn Eile with Cl'erk • Roblar -Ranch Conservation Easement ~ ' ~ " ~ ~ ard Staff Report to 'Bo of Directors, ApriT 6, 2004, Aequisition of CE over' Roblar Ranch ~~ Easement.Amendment Policy (excerpt from Di`strict. Stewardship Manual~' Attachments 1.. Site 1VIap: Robl.ar Ranch Conservation 'Easement . 2. Letter from Stephen Butler dated July 21, 20I0 3. Letter from Ken Wilson dated August 12,'20`10 4. Letter~ from Stepheri Butler dated September' 29; 2010 5. Letter from Stephen Butler dated October 13, 2010 : ~ ° 6. Site Map: Lakevi'lle Property and Surrounding Pr:otected Lands . :_ ` 7. Site Map: Proposed I=Iaul Road Exeliange 8. Site Ivlapc Modified Haul Road Exchange ~ ° 9. Site Map: Requested Preserve Area ` 10.. Site Map: Reconfigured Preserve Area , ~ 12