disinformation: The KARES legal case is disinformation
“I'm surprised at some of the assertions you have made in your letter. They are not accurate. I know some people living in the Clover Basin/Sommerset region have become very passionate about "saving" the Kanemoto parcel from development, but unfortunately in the service of that campaign they are spreading grievous disinformation. I'm sorry that you are the victim of that. Here are the facts you need to know...” Written by Marcia Martin, Longmont City Council Member, to a concerned Longmont resident
The Truth
The basis for the Kanemoto lawsuit is not disinformation, it is entirely based on the legal requirements of the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan and Boulder County Land Use Code. To claim the case is disinformation is a distortion of the facts by those promoting their personal and political agendas.
disinformation: The Kanemoto CE is legally in a Longmont area of potential urbanization
“The Longmont Planning Area (LPA) was established by agreement between Boulder County and the City of Longmont. As defined by this agreement, the LPA is an “area of potential urbanization … which would not be interrupted by Boulder County Open Space.” The boundaries of the LPA have remained the same for decades, and the LPA has always included the Kanemoto Estates property as an area of potential urbanization.” Written by Marcia Martin, Longmont City Council Member, to a concerned Longmont resident
The Truth
As outlined in the BCCP Pg PPA-5, and section 6-700 of the BCLUC it was illegal to include the 1982 Kanemoto property in the Longmont LPA in 1996. This is why there is a lawsuit in Colorado District Court.
disinformation: The Kanemoto CE is open space
“The Third Amended Longmont Planning Area Comprehensive Development Plan Intergovernmental Agreement (the “CDP IGA”) defines the boundaries of the LPA and contractually binds the County to not obtain open space within the LPA and the City to not annex property outside of the LPA. The current LPA map can be viewed here: https://assets.bouldercounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/iga-map-longmont-planning-area.pdf.” Written by Marcia Martin, Longmont City Council Member, to a concerned Longmont resident
The Truth
The Kanemoto property is not Open Space. As such the statement above does not apply. It is a nonaccessible public/private Conservation Easement with NUPUD status. Under the BCCP most all Conservation Easements were never intended to be open to the public. This was an intentional design to preserve private Agricultural Land. See BCCP Pgs AG-2, PPA 2, 3, 5. It can not be considered for development under section 6-700 of the BCLUC.
disinformation: The Kanemoto CE was intended to be undeveloped until the surrounding area was developed
“The reason that there's land with a conservation easement on it inside the LPA is that this particular conservation easement is not part of, and actually predates, the Boulder County Open Space Program. An easement is merely a legal property management tool constituting an agreement between two entities, such as a County Government and a property owner, about land use. There is no presumption that all easements are perpetual, and this particular easement was intended to hold the land undeveloped until the City of Longmont planners had extended the horizontal infrastructure out as far as the easement. That's why the cost of lifting the easement is specified by Boulder County statute. As you see by the proximity of the north side of the Kanemoto Estates parcel to Bluestem Drive, which is fully developed, the time for developing the Kanemoto Estates parcel has arrived.” Written by Marcia Martin, Longmont City Council Member, to a concerned Longmont resident
The Truth
This statement is misinformation: "...this particular easement was intended to hold the land undeveloped until the City of Longmont planners had extended the horizontal infrastructure out as far as the easement." This statement is not supported in any legal document. The 1982 Conservation Easement Contract, paragraph 2 specifically says: “Whereas the Grantee [Boulder] has determined that to accomplish the purpose of preserving agricultural land, it is desirable to acquire a conservation easement which preserves open land for agricultural purposes within the above-described property, and Grantor [Kanemoto] is willing to grant the same.” The CE Land Plat specifically says, “...for the use of the public forever...”
Both Boulder County and the original property owners agreed to the preservation of this property for agricultural use. BCCP AG 1.13 directs Boulder County in preserving...and perpetuating agricultural uses. For clarification, the American Heritage Dictionary defines the word Perpetuate as “to continue indefinitely... preserve from extinction.”
disinformation: Longmont is doing its part to preserve our agricultural and natural open space
“Here is a map and list of properties showing that the City of Longmont is more than doing its part to preserve agricultural and natural Open Space. Nearly all this land WAS purchased outright, the exceptions being mainly small easements that allow the former owner to live in their lifelong homes while continuing to cultivate the land they sold to the City as an agricultural preserve.” Written by Marcia Martin, Longmont City Council Member, to a concerned Longmont resident
The Truth
Terminating the Kanemoto CE is a failure, as stated above, "to preserve agricultural and natural Open Space.” City Council members who endorse the statements above are expected as residents of Boulder County to continue the preservation of natural lands established by the BCCP and BCLUC.
disinformation: Significant Agricultural Lands are so common they are not worth preserving
“Regarding your mention of Agricultural Land of Special Significance, that designation has been accorded to most of the land under cultivation in the United States, including much of the City of Longmont's actual open space. Our agricultural open space (as opposed to that which is designated a wildlife preserve, such as the Greenway) is kept under cultivation by contract, and is largely owned by the City, rather than merely protected by conservation easements. By contrast, no taxpayer money designated for open space purchase changed hands to create the easement on Kanemoto Estates, which was more in the nature of a barter to allow the then-owners to build a second house on the parcel.” Written by Marcia Martin, Longmont City Council Member, to a concerned Longmont resident
The Truth
Nationally Significant Agricultural Land is designated by the USDA as Prime Farmland. Boulder County specifically directs NSAL to be preserved and conserved. BCCP Pages AG 1.02.01 & 1.0, OS-2, PPA 3.04. BCLUC 4.806.8, 6-100 D1, 6-400B, 6-700 G3
disinformation: the kanemoto CE is not near a riparian area
“The nearest natural riparian area to the Kanemoto Estates property would be Left Hand Creek, well to the south of Kanemoto Estates. Even if you consider the artificial Holland Ditch to be a riparian corridor, it still doesn't cross the parcel in question.” Written by Marcia Martin, Longmont City Council Member, to a concerned Longmont resident
The Truth
The Kanemoto CE is adjacent to the Left Hand Creek Riparian Habitat Connector. BCCP Map 13. Riparian corridors are not confined to the stream bed alone. They expand outward from the bank of the stream. “RMZ (Riparian management zone) width on 3rd & 4th order and larger streams and rivers may expand to encompass known wildlife travel corridors, drinking water supply considerations, [watershed] and the full extent of the 100-year floodplain (unh.edu).” The Kanemoto Conservation Easement is a wildlife travel corridor. Left Hand Creek is at a minimum a 3rd order stream. The property is only 1350 ft from the stream and 640 ft from the Holland Ditch. As photographically documented, wildlife do not use tape measures to seek out available food sources. In addition, the property is a constituent part of the Left Hand Creek watershed. Building a mini city on this Conservation Easement is replacing the natural filtration system with a high-density, 40-acre parking lot. “As impervious (or impenetrable) surfaces increase in urban areas, this leads to less natural water filtration. Impervious surfaces can contribute to pollution in urban watersheds...These pollutants eventually end up contaminating the watershed (nature.org).”
disinformation: Ensuring USDA food supply is not within local and county jurisdiction
“Ensuring the food supply is, of course, outside the jurisdiction of either the City of Longmont or Boulder County. That is regulated by the Federal Department of Agriculture.” Written by Marcia Martin, Longmont City Council Member, to a concerned Longmont resident
The Truth
Boulder County has accepted its responsibility to follow federal and state mandates as defined in BCCP Pg AG-5. AG 1.07 State, Federal, and Local Programs: The county shall continue to actively participate in state, federal, and local programs directed toward the identification and preservation of agricultural land. The failure of Boulder County and the failure of the City of Longmont, as a subordinate subdivision of the County, to follow these legal codes displays a level of potential misconduct.
disinformation: The local Sierra Club chapter soundly argued for the easement to be lifted
“Because of the nature of your concerns, I am attaching a copy of a letter sent by the local Sierra Club chapter to the Boulder County Commissioners when they were making their decision about the disposition of the Kanemoto Estates conservation easement. It does a good job of explaining the importance to the natural environment of good urban management, and recommends that the easement be lifted and the planned Somerset Village development to proceed.” Written by Marcia Martin, Longmont City Council Member, to a concerned Longmont resident
The Truth
The letter received was written by a member of the subordinate Indian Peaks Chapter. It does not conform with the Mission Statement of the National Sierra Club, “To explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth, to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources...” Where does this mission statement support the destruction of Protected Conservation Easements?
The letter was unsolicited and far outside the National Program. The initial Indian Peaks letter made bold assertions about Walkability, Net Zero energy efficiency, a childcare center, and accessible transportation while ignoring the 4000 additional car trips per day estimated for Airport Rd.
The destruction of a County Natural Resource was promoted while ignoring the need for redevelopment of depressed sites within the City limits.
Boulder Commissioner Ashley Stolzmann had sent an immediate reply challenging the statements made in the letter. She commented how the developer was asked to make legal commitments to these provisions and he publicly refused to do so. A subsequent letter from the Indian Peaks chapter admitted the previous provisions could not be guaranteed. As expected, the final document only requires the developer to make two legal commitments, 88% attainable housing and 12% affordable housing. As Commissioner Stolzmann suggested the other provisions may fail to materialize once the project is approved. What would motivate a subordinate official, far outside the national Sierra Club organization, to provide an unsolicited letter in support of terminating a protected Conservation Easement?
disinformation: the kanemoto CE housing development will help Longmont's housing affordability crisis
“Longmont recently conducted a housing needs assessment which concluded that Longmont has a shortage of some 2000 units of affordable and middle-income housing. This includes people who live in Longmont now who are inadequately housed, young adults unable to leave their parents' homes but remain in their hometown, and people who now work in Longmont and are suffering long and environmentally harmful commutes because they can't afford to live here. Allowing the development of Sommerset Village to proceed will address the needs of some 400 such households. I consider addressing their needs a duty of mine as a civil servant with a public trust. I shall certainly vote to annex Kanemoto Estates when in comes before me. I hope you will look into your heart and reconsider your position.” Written by Marcia Martin, Longmont City Council Member, to a concerned Longmont resident
The Truth
No one disagrees with Affordable Housing. However, NOT on a Protected Conservation Easement. The City has multiple revitalization sites it has abandoned to decay. We know why the County has attempted to terminate this CE. They are influenced by a 2.32 million dollar financial gain. It appears the city is assuming a negligent position as it abandons its responsibility to direct developers to the depressed infill sites in desperate need of revitalization.