Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout039-530-019�J Pacif c Realty Associates KRC Holdings Inc. (LESSEE) 3964 Chico River Road Chico, CA 95928 . ....... 'Outte, Count, .LAI\D OF 'NATUP,AL WEALTH AND BEAUTY KENNETH O. REIMERS February 21, 2006 ASSESSOR 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3382 Telephone: (530) 538-7721 Fax: (530) 538-7991 Re: Williamson Act Cancellation Certified Value To Whom It May Concern: Due to an error in the legal description utilized in the valuation and cancellation fee dated 1/17/2006, a value certification correction is required. The corrected acreage under cancellation application is t106.6ac of the total acres under non -renewal per recorded document 2006-0001592. As provided for in Chapter 7, Article 5, Section 51283 of the Government code, the Assessor's Office certifies the cancellation valuation for the following parcel(s): A.P.N. PTN 039-530-019 Pacific Realty Associates (AKA M&T Chico Ranch) _ . . ............... . .. _ ._.. PT -N- 039-530=020.... - _ - KRC Holdings Inc: (LESSEE)_ .... _.. _. Market Land Value $460,000 Market Structure Value - Market Growing Value Total Market Value $460,000 Value subject to cancellation fees $460,000 Indicated Cancellation Rate 12.5% _ Indicated Cancellation Fee $57,500 j • I The assessee and/or the Department of Conservation has the right to request a formal valuation review from the Assessor within 45 days of this certified valuation. If either party requests a formal review, the Assessor will notify the other party as to the situation. The party requesting review has thirty (30) days to submit information pertinent to the valuation to the Assessor. This information will be given to the other party, which in turn has,twenty (20) days to submit a response. The review should be completed within 120 days. Respectfully Submitted Ken Reimers, Assessor by Blake Bailey I • Principle Appraiser j i i cc: Butte County Development Services, California Department of Conservation & Assessor- File i l Chairman Price asked staff to look and make sure the parcel number is under contract. ■ Status of Updating of LCA Implementing Resolution Mr. Calarco said some of this work has been begun. He said there should be a draft ready for an initial review at the May meeting. Mr. Calarco introduced Chuck Thistlethwaite, the new Planning Manager. II. APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION A. Evelyn C. Liptrap — APN 047-260-199 - Continued at the applicant's request until' the March, 2006 meeting. Awaiting response from DOC to County Counsel letter of 12-21-05. Mr. Troester gave an update on this request. He said a letter was sent to the Department of Conservation (DOC) last December. He said the applicant has asked for a continuance until the County hears from. DOC. He said he hopes to have a response by the next meeting. B. M & T/ Pacific Realty Partial Cancellation #06-02, APN 039-530-020, 018. Mr. Troester gave a brief summary of the project. He noted that the 40 acre stockpile area is not a part of this cancellation. He said staff and DOC both feel it is possible to make the cancellation findings. There was a brief discussion on aggregate supplies in Butte County. Chairman Price asked if they need to make both the finding that this is in the public interest and consistent. Mr. MacKenzie said under Code Section 51282 it states that the Committee has to make either a consistency finding or that it is in the public interest, but not both. He read the consistency findings from the Code. He said finding 1 was done, finding 2 was set forth adequately in the report, finding 3 was already consistent with the General Plan, finding 4 will not happen for mining, and finding 5 doesn't apply because this is not urban development. He said there is a demand for aggregate in Butte County. Mr. Connell asked if the definition of "available land" is land that can be purchased. Mr. MacKenzie explained that the use of the aggregate from this site will go to • the east portion of Butte County and not to Glenn County. Mr. Connell asked if there was another parcel with signs of aggregate. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ February 21, 2006 ■Page 2 of 8 ■ • • Mr. Troester said there would need to be a study stating that there is viable aggregate land in the area and this has not been done. He said the study was done for the whole of Glenn County, but was not done in Butte County. Mr. Breedon commented that such a mineral study has been done for Martin - Marietta. The hearing was opened to the public. Rene Vercruyssen said Baldwin Contracting has leased the land to mine and they will be the operators. He said the LCA contract was signed in 1975 allowing mining as a compatible use. He said in 1996 the land owner entered into a lease with M&T for 600 acres only with 235 acres in aggregate. He said a draft EIR found that cancellation was not required for sand and gravel. In 2003 in the Final EIR, DOC did not think mining was a compatible use with the LCA contract. He noted that a Notice of Non -renewal has been filed on the 235 acres. He said 106 acres of the 235 acres is here today requesting a cancellation. He said he met with DOC. Mr. Skinner asked whether the LCA permits sand and gravel mining. Mr. Wannenmacher said the questioned was whether the land was prime agricultural land and had to be reclaimed as prime land. Mr. Troester discussed the different types of mining. He said there is the type that stockpiles the soil and puts the land back to agricultural land, the other is digging a pit and filling it at the end for wildlife habitat. Chairman Price said M & T plans to put this land into wildlife habitat. Mr. Wannenmacher discussed the Draft EIR. He said the comments would be addressed in the Final EIR. He noted that the EIR has not yet been adopted. Jeff Dorso, Baldwin Contracting, said the EIR found the mining use to be consistent with the contract. He submitted a letter dated February 20, 2006. He said the housing issue and air emissions issue were common sense. Mr. Connell said he was comfortable with the applicant's proposed "public interest" Findings 1, a, b, & c. He said Findings 1, d & e are speculative. Mr. Bailey said that 75 per cent of the contracts from 1968 .fmd mining consistent with the contract. He asked if mining will still be considered a compatible use under the new Resolution. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ February 21, 2006.■ Page 3 of 8 ■ • C� Mr. Troester said this is a complex area that is being worked on during the Resolution update. Mr. Bailey asked about the. reclamation and was there a question from DOC on whether the reclamation was there or not. Mr. Breedon said he was not sure what the DOC's position is. He said he would provide the a recent article on mining and LCA Article to the Committee. Mr. Bailey asked are we going to amend the old contracts . or state the old contracts will be under the new Resolution when it is done. Mr. Connell said there is no reason the contract should be cancelled, but can understand why the applicant would not want to fight with DOC. Mr. Bailey said the issue with this project is the reclamation. He said reclaiming the land to prime agricultural land is not economical. He said non -renewal of the contract is the preferred way to get out of the contract. He said there could be an aggregate shortage in 50 years according to the plan, but will there be a shortage in the next 10 years? Mr. Troester said to answer that question, it would take an analysis that has not been done. Mr. Bailey commented on the aggregate product reports that go to the Assessor's Office. Mr. Vercruyssen said they proceeded with the project believing they did not have to cancel the contract. He said if they have to wait 10 years for non -renewal the EIR information would no longer be good. Mr. Dorso said it is difficult.to look at just a 10 year aggregate supply period and that is why they do a 50 year plan. Mr. MacKenzie listed the five "consistency" findings necessary to approve this cancellation, 1. the cancellation is on land for which a Notice of Non -renewal has been served; 2. cancellation is not likely to result in removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use; 3. cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City or County General Plan; 4. that cancellation will not result in dis-contiguous patterns of urban development; and 5. that there is no proximate non -contract land which is. both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put. The hearing was closed and comments confined to the Committee and staff. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ February 21, 2006 ■ Page 4.of 8 -m 4 • . It was moved by Mr. Connell, seconded by Mr. Bailey, and unanimously carried for a Motion of Intent to recommend cancellation of this contract to the Board of Supervisors. Steve Troester said the Committee passed a Motion of Intent to recommend the Board of Supervisors find that there are consistency findings for immediate cancellation of the contract under Williamson Act provisions and not public interest. Chairman Price asked if Butte County Air Quality Management District (AQMD) had commented on the EIR or the other concerns under public interest. He said the previous motion was not a Motion of Intent, but a plain motion to send this forward to the Board of Supervisors. Chairman Price said 1. Non -renewal has been established; 2. The cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent land, staff has proved this finding. He said they are not going to do processing on the site and this will reduce dust. He said the dust can be controlled with adequate watering. He said no cumulative impacts are expected as a result of this.project.; 3. that cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with applicable provisions of City or County • General Plan, the alternative use requests is consistent with the County General Plan upon securing a Mining Permit and reclamation plan; 4. that cancellation will not result in dis-contiguous patterns of urban development - that the zoning would preclude that from taking place. 5. that there is no proximate non - contracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use or that development of the contracted would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development. He said staff is saying that the proximate land is not available for this use. Mr. Bailey said all the land around this is either in the Williamson Act or has a conservation easement that precludes the intended use. He said on the Butte County side of the property he believed this finding could be met. He said the issue of the Sacramento River being a natural barrier to those lands seven and a half miles to the west. We have to look at just the Butte County side and not the Glen County side. Mr. MacKenzie said he would like them to do a Motion of Intent and bring this back at the next meeting with the final findings, or make a final motion today. It was moved by Mr. Connell, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and unanimously passed to rescind the previous motion. • It was moved by Mr. Connell, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and unanimously passed to do a Motion of Intent to recommend the Board of Supervisors approve the tentative partial cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract- for M & T Ranch ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ February 21, 2006 m, Page 5 of 8 ■ I • subject to the conditions. The applicant was directed, to work with staff to research and provide additional support for the findings. Mr. Bailey said there was a concern regarding the cancellation fee. He revised the fee to 106 acres with a market valued at $460,000.00 and 12% of that is $57,500. He said the other item of concern is in regards to the 40+ acres with the stockpiling and scale house, etc. He said there might be a Government Code 51250 regarding LCA, Material Breach if there is substantial construction even if the construction is to be removed at the end of the mining project. He said if such construction is deemed to be compatible and approved by DOC, he would have'no problem with it. Mr. Troester said that DOC was ok with the stockpiling as long as there is a non- renewal filed and the reclamation shows the land being returned to prime agricultural land. Mr. Bailey said the primary concern is the construction items such as a scale house. Chairman Price said it might be good for County Counsel to write to DOC. • Mr. Breedon said he would talk to DOC. IV. APPLICATIONS FOR CANCELLATION A. Status of Wayne and Kathy Birkholz Immediate Cancellation (heard on 12-20- 05), awaiting status from Mr. Birkholz to proceed. Mr. Troester and Mr. Breedon met with Mr. Robert Birkholz a week ago and Mr. Birkholz told him that he and his attorney would be talking to DOC. Mr. Birkholz asked staff to have consideration of the cancellation by the Board of Supervisors placed on hold and staff felt the request should be granted. Mr. Bailey said these parcels are in the Chafin master contract and since our last meeting one additional parcel has been sold in breach of this contract. This matter was continued to March 21, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. V. COMMITTEE CONCERNS A. STAFF UPDATE- on Williamson Act workshop with LCA, landowners and DOC on Monday March 13, 7:00 p.m. at the Durham Elementary School, 9431 Putney Dr. off Durham Dayton Highway, 1/10 mile west of the Midway. • Mr. Troester said he was pleased with the response to the letter they sent out. He said they should have a full house in Durham for the workshop.. ■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ February 21, 2006 ■. Page 6 of 8 ■