 |
 |
County gives tentative OK to substituting 105 acres of private land for habitat restoration
By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
The debate continues over the merits of a controversial land deal, tentatively approved Tuesday, involving publicly protected Sonoma County farmland.
Retiring Supervisors Mike Kerns and Paul Kelley, and board Chairwoman Valerie Brown, backed Roblar Road quarry developer John Barella’s plan to use 105 acres of adjacent, taxpayer-protected private ranchland to replace rare amphibian habitat that will be lost when rock is extracted in his $60 million project.
John Barella.
The 3-2 vote, in which Supervisors Shirlee Zane and Efren Carrillo opposed the proposal, has fueled continued discussion over whether the deal provides public benefits and its policy implications for the county’s 20-year-old Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District.
Supporters praised the board majority, saying they looked beyond the controversy surrounding the quarry and upheld the purpose of the open space district and its protection agreement on the 105 acres of farmland.
“The board dealt absolutely appropriately with the issue before them,” said former five-term county supervisor Tim Smith, who has worked for Barella. “The district is in the position to fulfill a couple of missions at the same time.
Preservation of agriculture and preservation of natural resources. That focus tends to get lost when it’s connected with a quarry.”
But critics said the decision sets a dangerous precedent by tampering with agreements intended to be permanent, known as conservation easements, and opening up district-protected lands for habitat requirements connected to a private development.
“Once you start fiddling with those easements, it’s all downhill from there,” said Bill Kortum, a former county supervisor and Petaluma environmentalist who has served nearly three decades on the board of the Sonoma Land Trust.
The normally apolitical group also opposes the deal, which Kortum and others say could open the door to widescale private habitat mitigation on district-protected land.
In Barella’s case, the deal could save him $5 million to $15 million — the cost of equivalent acreage or more pricey “habitat credits” he might otherwise have to buy — according to figures provided by mitigation experts.
Barella, who declined interview requests last week, has disputed those figures, saying he has land elsewhere in the county that might be suitable for mitigation.
Critics countered that an established principle in habitat mitigation is the addition of new protected lands. They said that step would not happen in the deal with Barella, though he has offered the district title to the 200-acre quarry property and an easement on his 244-acre Petaluma River ranch.
“The public has huge investments in buying these easements,” Kortum said. “Why should they further the lining of a developer’s pocketbook?”
Speakers in Tuesday’s packed public hearing represented viewpoints from both sides.
Kerns, who represents the south county area slated for the quarry, and Brown, the board chairwoman and swing vote Tuesday, framed the issue in both narrow and broad terms.
The property in question is a 388-acre rangeland parcel owned by Diamond W Dairy co-owners Ken and Clairette Wilson. The supervisors said carving out a piece for endangered California tiger salamander and threatened California red-legged frog habitat made good biological sense since the amphibians live on the adjacent quarry property.
They also disagreed with district staff and the advice of the County Counsel’s Office and determined that any further farming restrictions on the Wilson property to protect habitat would be consistent with the current easement that protects agriculture.
Both also cast the issue in larger terms.
District-protected lands should be on the table when habitat mitigation is required of private or public developments, they said.
The public benefit of such deals comes in the additional habitat they provide for endangered species, they said.
Kerns went further, echoing quarry supporters who spoke Tuesday by saying such deals also enable developments — be it the widening of Highway 101, construction of the SMART rail line, or a quarry — that provide public benefit.
“Where are we to mitigate for that if county protected lands are not on the table?” he said. “This will allow certain types of development to go forward that otherwise might not be able to go forward.”
Both said such decisions should be made on a “case-by-case basis.” They also disagreed with critics that Tuesday’s vote set any new precedent, or that it would undermine taxpayer and landowner support for the district.
“It’s hard for me to believe that based on a decision to combine cattle and tiger salamander that, ‘Oh my gosh, I’m never going to support the open space district again,’” said Brown. “I think people are much more savvy than that.”
The two supervisors also echoed quarry supporters who said the issue wouldn’t have garnered much attention if it hadn’t been connected to the hotly disputed quarry project. It is set for formal approval Tuesday, along with the open space deal.
But critics, including land conservationists, dairy belt landowners and ag leaders, some of whom didn’t take a stand on the quarry, said any instance of changing or reinterpreting conservation easements, which are designed as permanent documents, should set off alarm bells.
“If you allow modifications for a good cause, then the next step is maybe one that is not so good,” said former south county supervisor Jim Harberson, who was a leader in the open space district’s formation.
“The public has a perception that ‘in perpetuity’ means that (easements) are not open to reinterpretation by different boards of supervisors over time,” said Lex McCorvey, executive director of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau. The vote was a “head-scratcher” for the farming community, he said, because it relies on the “certainty” of such agreements.
“I’m not sure that the board gave us confidence in the integrity of the district’s easement policies,” he said.
In the aftermath of last week’s hearing, all sides have called for the open space district to resume work on a policy that could guide such decisions in the future. The district’s citizens advisory committee, which unanimously opposed the deal, had called for postponement of Tuesday’s vote to allow for a draft policy, shelved more than a year ago, to be completed.
Meanwhile, any final go-ahead for the deal will have to come from state and federal wildlife officials. Their input is not expected until Barella completes his formal application, which his biologist said wouldn’t happen until spring.
The Tresch dairy family are also mulling their next move.
The family opposed the deal because a 368-acre piece of their rangeland adjacent to the Wilson property is covered by the same conservation easement. The Tresches say their farming operations on that land could be restricted without their consent to protect the rare frog and salamander habitat to be added to the Wilson property.
A legal challenge is not out of the question, Kathy Tresch said.
“We’re still kind of in shock,” she said.
You can reach Staff Writer Brett Wilkison at 521-5295 or brett.wilkison@pressdemocrat.com.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
I still have questions: Why do the local residents that oppose the quarry have no rights? What about their loss of property value due to their proximity to the quarry? What about their physical and mental health possibly(or probably)being impaired by blasting, toxic dust, increased truck traffic? What about local farming…does blasting and dairy mix? How do the cows respond respond to the added stress? Increased stress may equal increased infection rate and disease. Regarding “protected” wildlife, is blasting going to impact all of the surrounding properties? hense all the “protected and unprotected wildlife that reside there? What is the cost of that loss of habitat? For example will it collapse tunnels containing the salamanders? Can they tolerate the increased noise? Toxic dust? or even increased dust? Will it make the water quality unsuitable for the wildlife, the nearby farming, the local residents and the federally protected fish and other wild species downstream? Will the creeks and estuary become contaminated and what if the Quarry owner chose bankrupcy as a way out? What would then be the cost to the county? Will the cities who are also held in liability to the former dump also be sued? Will the increased truck traffic cause additional fatalities on this road? Will it be school children and or their parents at the nearby schools? How much more money will be required involved to “maintain” Roblar and the surrounding roads? Does the “Open Space District” lose its public support and thus its funding? Will potentially toxic or dust from the Quarry or even the landfill contaminate the grapes and other agricultural products produced in the proximal area?… What about the forever preserved open space land will it be contaminated, what is the cost of that lost to the taxpayers who contributed to it worth? Why would the county want this decimated dump at the end of its productive life? Will it actually be a liability? A blight? Post approvel by the this County Board of Sups these questions are still valid and need to be answered now before it is the dammage that is in perpetuity.
I don’t know “John Bly,” but I can say with certainly he is completely clueless about the environmental impacts of the Barella proposal, first.
If you have explosions and blasting of hillsides off to get to low-quality rock, with hundreds of truck trips in and out daily, species such as the Calif. Tiger Salamander, Red-Legged Frog, and the poor American Badger who is a ground based burrowing mammal, will not have any type of survivable habitat NEARBY. It is ludicrous to think mitigation on the adjacent property in any form would work, open space conservation easement or not.
But since the violation of the conservation easement practices was readily voted for by Kerns, Kelley and Brown, they should know they have gone against the will of the voters as well as virtually all, if not completely all, conservation organizations and the very people who worked to help with creation and passage of the tax measure that created the Open Space District.
Agriculture and wildlife can co-exist in a delicate balance and, with loss and fragmentation of habitat, that is exactly what is occurring on Roblar Road.
A quarry, with explosions, blastings, and heavy truck traffic in that area, in that location, will destroy everything.
And stop perverting the go local argument. This quarry location is in an outdated 1984 ARMS plan, the former owner couldn’t get permits to try and open it because of the public health and safety danger, and basically the Board of Supervisors is just saying “sue us,” and they are hoping the CARRQ group and their attorney will just go away, being rural residents who may not know better. My hope is the citizens group is as strong as ever and you SUE the County Board of Supervisors over this issue as well as the Open Space District BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
You won’t have to waste to much ink, since they are one and the same. Stay strong, CARRQ! Protect your quality of life and the wild lives. This is where you live and work. John Barella is an opportunist who is trying to use his money to buy whatever he wants. In the same breath, he talks about how much he has done for the community. He gives money so he can then do whatever he wants to in construction and development. Petalumans should wake up and find other people from whom to accept ‘money.”
If a different project than a quarry were involved, there would not be this “woe is us” open space lament going on. Bottom line-the endangered critters will be better off with a mitigated habitat on the nearby property, and agriculture can still continue so the protected status of the land is maintained. The environment we should consider is not just here in Sonoma County-it is also where the rock is being mined in Canada and Mexico and barged down here to be used. We have to think more globally and be good stewards of the local environment as well as Canada and Mexico. The rock is being used by us for our benefit so let’s keep the dollars here in our own County and be good stewards of the environment-Win-Win
The problem here seems to be a certain mind-set. One that does not clearly recognize the difference between private and public. Barella is a private developer. The Open Space District is a public agency, created by the public and supported by public (taxpayer) funds.
First, shortly after purchasing close to 1,000 acres of agricultural land for the sole purpose of developing a rock quarry on a portion of the property, Barella turned to the Open Space District to collect $2.3 million for placing approximately 800 acres of that land under a permanent agricultural conservation Agreement. The District’s purpose (specifically expressed by the voters’ intent) was to keep the land in economically productive agricultural use for future generations. Barella’s purpose was simply to collect an easy couple of million. He professed absolutely no interest in agriculture, or its economic preservation. He immediately sold off 800 acres, keeping his remaining 200 acres free of any such agreements–that land was reserved for his quarry.
Next, when Barella assessed the expense of improving Roblar Rd to accommodate his gravel trucks, both he and the County (his attorney, PRMD, project consultants, and perhaps a Supervisor or two) determined it would be much less expensive for him to construct a private haul road over a portion of that property he’d committed to an Open Space Agreement before selling. It was the first attempt to use publicly funded conservation land to defray a private developer’s expenses. That attempt met with strong public opposition and failed miserably. What should be noticed is that Barella all the while insisted publicly he didn’t really want to use the Open Space land in the first place. He was perfectly fine with using Roblar Rd. So apparently it was just a good “college try” to see if he could double-dip to get a freebie out of the public coffers.
Then another opportunity arose when endangered species were discovered on the quarry property. Mitigating (compensating for) species and habitat destruction is extremely expensive. So, another attempt is initiated to defray that expense by using a portion of that same Open Space land that failed the sniff-test for the haul road. This time it would require that the land used for a species/habitat preserve alter the original Agreement so that any “agriculture” use of that property be limited to grazing for “vegetative management” only–in perpetuity. This is hardly in keeping with the intent expressed in the initial Agreement to keep the land economically viable for open-ended agricultural pursuits for future generations (“in perpetuity”). This was the promise of the District, and the intent of the voters. Purchasing credits through a mitigation bank, which is the usual procedure, would cost Barella somewhere between $5.5-$16 million. And, again, Barella has stated publicly that if this doesn’t work through the proposed Open Space land proposal, it’s OK because he has lots of other properties (not under Open Space agreements) that he can use instead.
DOES ANYONE NOTICE A PATTERN HERE? It appears the Open Space District is a first-stop for developers in their attempt to shift their private expenses to the public.
Under the Kerns, Kelley, and Brown mind-set, this would be OK because the quarry will produce rock they assert the public needs. Well any private business presumably produces something the public wants or needs. That does not translate into all private businesses should have access to public funding to mitigate their business expenses.
Like Kerns, Kelley, and Brown, Zane and Carrillo will most likely vote to approve the quarry project. But Zane and Carrillo appear to recognize the importance of keeping public and private separate, and have indicated they may vote against the Open Space provision. The quarry project proposal can be approved without approval of the resolution to allow mitigation. This would preserve the integrity of the Open Space District and their agreements.
Mitigation credits, open space taxes, habitat easements, EIRs,
It is truly a mystery why businesses and wage earners are leaving this state faster than any others….
The open space tax is a ripoff because most of the land it protects would never be developed anyways.
Kind of like a horse and pony show.
As someone who voted for the open space tax, I find this policy to be a complete rip-off of taxpayers and violation of the open space initiative.
This new policy basically allows land owners to double dip. Taxpayers are essentially paying for mitigation banks for private development where developers would otherwise have to set aside portions of their own land for mitigation at their own cost or purchase mitigation credits on private lands not supported by tax dollars.
How long before other land owners with publicly funded open space easements figure out they can now sell mitigation credits to private developers? Must be nice to get several million in tax dollars for development rights then having the ability to sell mitigation credits involving the same piece of land.
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury should investigate this issue.