Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 3.ALate3 10/18/20104 • y' '`.. .h ® i ` ~3ti~151617r8~9~ ~~ti °~ CARNIGLIA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION o c~P r' 6011 CARNIGLIA LANE e~ ~+- 2p~~ w PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA 94952 °D °'`~' ~ :~ 707-664-1760 ~ ~tT.'Lr~ ti . c1 _~~Y .~°~ October 13; City Of Petaluma City Council 1.1 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Subject: Marin Agricultural Land Trust Letter dated October 11, 2010 Dear Mayor and Council Members, The Marin Agricultural Land Trust's subject letter was submitted to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors recommending denying John Barella's request for an easement across Sonoma Land Trust protected property for commercial purposes. MALT listed four very concise arguments to deny this proposal by Mr. Barella. The summary comment from Malt was that the Board should deny any use that "would be inconsistent with the intent, purposes and provisions of the easement". I request this entire letter be read into the official city record. Sincerely, - ,~ Robert W. Piazza For the CEHOA -,.--fir-. r-~ ~r, { 1 `~ 3 Post Office Box 809 I~~ 1~~ L~(Q ~ Point Reyes Station FFF"/~~~/ ~` /~~ f;~' /L e i California 44956 T 415 663-1158 MA//~~RIpN~AGRICUL''TAAUCRATL F 415663-1099 L /'S ~ ® ~ ~ V S 1 vnvw.malLOrg October 11, 2010 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Valerie Brown, vbrownna sonoma-county.org Supervisor Mike Kerns, mkerns(c~sonoma-county.org Supervisor Shirlee Zane, szane@sonoma-county.org Supervisor Paul Kelley, mkelley(~sonoma-county.orcf Supervisor Efren Carrillo, ecarrillo(~sonoma-count ~~orq 575 Administrative Drive, Room 1ooA Santa Rosa, CA g54o3 Re: Roblar Road Quarry/PRMD File No. PLP o3---94~ Barella Conservation Easement recorded May 21, 2004, as Document # 2004o7748g, Office of Official Records of Sonoma County Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT} was created in 1g8o to preserve agricultural land in Marin County. MALT currently holds perpetual conservation easements on 66 farms and ranches totaling 41,882 acres. As an organization that uses conservation easements to carry out its land conservation mission, we depend, as do hundreds of nonprofit organizations and government agencies in the U.S., on the legal validity, durability, integrity, and enforceability of conservation easements. We understand that the Sonoma Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District (the District) is considering "temporarily releasing" the referenced conservation easement it holds (the Barella Easement or Easement) over a 3-4 acre portion of the property (now owned by Wilson) to permit a haul road to serve a gravel mining operation on an adjoining property. We also understand that the proposed "temporary release" is purported to be justified by the addition of a new conservation easement on the adjoining gravel mining property. MALT believes that this action is not only improper and contrary to the intent, and provisions of the Easement, but also, if taken, represents a serious threat to the integrity and enforceability of conservation easements generally and to public confidence in the integrity of conservation easements and the o~ Printed on ro0°b req•cled paper ~~~ public's trust in the commitment and ability of holders to enforce and defend them. While there are a myriad of reasons the proposed "temporary release" is improper, among the most obvious are the following: 1. The Barella Easement is expressly perpetual, and is expressly granted pursuant to California Civil Code sections 815 to 816 which require conservation easements granted pursuant to this section to be perpetual in duration. The proposed haul road is patently inconsistent with the purposes and terms of the easement. To temporarily release the easement over even a small portion of the encumbered property to permit an activity clearly prohibited by the easement violates the perpetual nature of the easement. 2. The Barella easement encumbers a specific 757-acre property (the Barella-Wilson Property) as identified in the easement. The restrictions of the Easement apply exclusively to that property. Section 4 of the Easement provides: "This Agreement shall confine the uses of the Property to the uses which are described herein." The haul road is clearly inconsistent with the Easement. Modification of the Easement cannot be justified on the protection of other land, however worthy. 3. Public Resources Code Section 5540.5 is being cited as autharity for the District to exchange a temporary release of the Easement over a portion of the Barell-Wilson property for a conservation easement on the adjoining gravel mining property. If the District owned the Barella- Wilson property or a partial interest in the property for park and/or open space purposes subject only to its own powers and authority, Section 5540.5 might give the District that authority. But Section 5540.5 does not supersede or obviate the conservation easement on the Barella Property. If that were the case, conservation easements would have little meaning in the hands of Districts, effective only until a District chose to make a "better deal" under Section 5540.5. That is not the intent or effect of Section 5540.5• 4. The Barella Easement was sold to the District, according to the easement, "at a price substantially less than its fair market value, to make a charitable contribution to the DISTRICT in support of the s DISTRICT'S efforts to preserve open spare, scenic, agricultural and historic. values of the Property, and DISTRICT acknowledges GRANTOR'S charitable intent.." The Easement was apparently intended to constitute a qualified conservation contribution under the Internal Revenue Code. On its face, permitting the haul road over any portion of the Barella-Wilson property'is inconsistent with the Easement. Federal regulations require that easement holders demonstrate a "commitment to the protection of conservation resources;" A failure to uphold this commitment not only endangers the charitable contribution deduction of the grantor, but also could disqualify an agency from receiving qualified conservation easements as charitable gifts. It seems obvious tows that temporarily allowing a use over even a small portion of a property that is patently inconsistent with the conservation easement protecting the property is a violation of the easement, is an abrogation of the holder's obligations and responsibilities, undermines public confidence in the holder's commitment to the protection of the encumbered property, and threatens the integrity of conservation easements as means of protecting land. We respectfully urge the. District to deny any use that is inconsistent with the intent, purposes and provisions of the Easement. Respectfully, ~~.~ r- Robert.Berner Executive Director Cc: MALT Board of Directors