HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 18, 2006•
B. M & T/ Pacific Realty Partial Cancellation #06-02, APN 039-530-020, 018. This
item was continued ftom the March 21, 2006, meeting. Staff recommends that the
Committee take action to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the
application for tentative conditional immediate cancellation, based on findings of
consistency with the Williamson Act (Section 51282. (b)). See Supplemental Staff
Report summarizing findings here attached.
Mr. Troester said in February staff provided proposed findings and supporting
documentation for each of the findings. At the March meeting based on a
recommendation from County Counsel, the Committee requested that additional
documentation be provided with regards to Finding 5 for consistency with the
Williamson Act. He provided a supplemental report of April 14 with additional
documentation, most of which comes from the Draft EIR that was prepared for this
project. He also provided a map showing current aggregate processing locations, the
nearest of which in Glenn County is Valley Rock Products, with an average haul distance
of comparative haul distances. He said the intersection of Highway 99 and Skyway was
used as the common point of reference. He said M&T Ranch haul distance was
calculated to be 10 miles, and Valley Rock was calculated to be 18 miles, etc.
Chairman Price said at the February meeting the Committee passed a Motion of Intent to
• approve this request based on additional findings being submitted to make this consistent.
He said he would like to go through the consistency findings one at a time.
Mr. Troester explained that this hearing is to deal with the cancellation and no other part
of the process. He explained the process. He said the application for the Mining Permit
will be considered by the Planning Commission by separate action. He said there is a
draft EIR that has been prepared. He said the action before this Committee today is that
they determine if the cancellation of Williamson Act Contract land is appropriate. He
said staff is asking for findings of consistency rather than public interest findings.
Starting on Page 3 of the staff report:
Finding 1. Notice of Non -renewal — has been received.
Finding 2. That Cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands
from agricultural use.
Staff has provided various subheadings in the report supporting this finding.
Chairman Price read the supporting findings: Y
a) The Draft EIR prepared for this project imposes seven mitigation measu res (4.5-'
• lb through 4.5-1h) to reduce fugitive dust emission from the gravel operations to
a less than significant level.
m Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ April 18, 2006 ■ Page 3 of 21 ■
Chairman Price said that is a valid question.
Mr. Connell said part of the land is in rice and part of the property is a drainage area, and
did not believe because the drainage area is not planted, that you could say the land was
not prime agricultural land. He said regarding 2.g. on dust, that there is not a lot of dust
with rice cultivation. He had a problem saying that the dust from the gravel mining
would be no more than the rice operation. He felt the dust would be significantly more.
■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ April 18 , 2006 ■ Page 4 of 21 ■
b)
All of the parcels immediately adjacent to the project are zoned Agricultural 40 -
acre minimum, and are located outside of the Chico urban Sphere of Influence.
The project would not extend any urban services to this area that would encourage
non-agricultural development resulting in removal of adjacent lands from
agricultural use.
C)
In general, the nature of sand and gravel operations discourages urbanization on
adjacent lands, thus reducing the threat of conversion of adjacent agricultural
lands due to possible urban uses.
d)
The project will be required, by way of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
(SMARA), to reclaim the area that is. mined to re -use as open space land.
Creation of open space land is compatible with adjacent agricultural operations
and is not likely to result in removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use.:
e)
The adjacent prime agricultural lands are not likely to be removed from
agricultural production because those lands to the north, south and east are under
Williamson Act contract. The 173 -acre parcel (APN 039-020-005) directly to the
west of the project site is not restricted by the Williamson Act, but is bisected by
River Road and Little Chico Creek, and contains orchards only on the northwest
side of Little Chico Creek.
f)
The Draft EIR specifically states that the project will result in the conversion of
non -prime agricultural farmland on the project site to open space, but that the
amount of agricultural land surrounding the site is abundant. In terms of prime
.
agricultural land loss, no significant cumulative land use impacts are expected to
result from this project (Draft EIR, § 6.1.2, p. 6-3).
g)
The Draft EIR states that proposed mining and reclamation activities would be
similar in scope and equipment used when compared to ongoing large-scale
agricultural operations on other portions of the project site and surrounding areas.
It also states that the dust generated by the gravel mining would be less than the
dust generation associated with agricultural operations. The impact of the gravel
mining operation would generate no greater impact than that of the existing
agricultural operations on adjacent land. (Draft EIR, § 4.2.3, p. 4.2-7).
h)
The Department of Conservation (DOC) November 28, 2005 comment letter
concluded that the proposed mining operation is unlikely to result in urban
development leading to the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use.
Mr.
Connell asked about 2.f. where the draft EIR talks about non -prime agricultural land
and
he thought the area was prime agricultural land, so how does staff conclude that this
is non -prime.
Chairman Price said that is a valid question.
Mr. Connell said part of the land is in rice and part of the property is a drainage area, and
did not believe because the drainage area is not planted, that you could say the land was
not prime agricultural land. He said regarding 2.g. on dust, that there is not a lot of dust
with rice cultivation. He had a problem saying that the dust from the gravel mining
would be no more than the rice operation. He felt the dust would be significantly more.
■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ April 18 , 2006 ■ Page 4 of 21 ■
He said staff is quoting from the draft EIR for the findings and , therefore, the findings
were not independent statements that really evaluate the situation.
Chairman Price said he would have to have substantial evidence that the cancellation is
not likely to result in taking adjacent lands from agricultural use.
Mr. Breedon said the Final EIR includes an addendum of soil scientist who produced a
report on the property in question. He read from the Final EIR noting that the document
has not been certified: "4.6.3 Farmland: Several commenters had the opinion that the
soils on the project site met NRCS prime farmland criteria. One commenter maintained:
"The DEIR should be amended to document the NRCS has determined that the soils at
the project site are prime farmlands." The mine site is not irrigated and is not prime
farmlands." The mine site is not irrigated and is not prime farmland. The soils have
some high capabilities, but they are not prime land as mapped by the State of California
or by the NRSC because they are un -irrigated. The MRCS -designated Land Capability of
each of the soils' on the site does not exceed Class III. Thus, the site does not qualify as
"Prime Farmland" under NRCS standards. The Storie Index Rating (SIR) for the soils on
the site does not exceed 55 percent. Significantly, standards for the Williamson Act
require a Storie Index Rating of 80 percent for inclusion of the soil in the designation
"Prime Farmland." (The reader is referred to Appendix B of this Final EIR, M&T Ranch
Soils Capability Assessment). Therefore, the site is not Prime Farmland under the
is Williamson Act definition of the term.
Mr. Bailey said he spoke to Mr. Dean Burkett at the Chico Branch of NRCS indicating
that the previous classification of the soil, which was a Columbia Loam, was not reduced
down to a 76% factor as a Parrot Silt loam. Brief explanation.
Mr. Connell asked if Mr. Bailey thought this land was prime or non -prime.
Mr. Bailey said areas that are out of the channel would be considered by the Assessor
prime agricultural land. He said the areas above the channel are considered by the
Assessor prime agricultural land.
Mr. Connell said another issue is the productive capability of the land.
Mr. Skinner said he farms in the area. He discussed the flooding in the area.
Mr. Connell said there is a rice field that has been laser leveled. There was a brief
discussion on rice fields.
Mr. Bailey said this was a difficult area because of the swale, the requirement of drainage
that the areas to the east went to rice land because they were more suitable to rice land.
He felt it was a difficult area to determine prime or non -prime agricultural land.
• Finding 3: that cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the
applicable provisions of the County General Plan.
■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ April 18, 2006 ■ Page 5 of 21 ■
•
a) The subject property proposed for cancellation carries the General Plan
designation of OFC Orchard and Field Crops. One of the allowed "secondary
uses" within the OFC is resources extraction and processing. Therefore, the
proposed gravel mining use is consistent with the allowable uses. for this land..
b) Policy 2.6.a. of the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element states:
Encourage extraction and processing of identified deposits of building materials
and other valued mineral resources.- Policy 2.6.b. also states: Encourage the
reclamation of lands subject to mineral extraction. The proposed alternative use
for the lands on which cancellation are requested is consistent with both of these
policies.
C) Policy 6.6.a. of the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element states,
"Encourage the creation and expansion of natural and wilderness areas." The
project proposes that mined areas will be reclaimed incrementally to high-quality
open -water, wetland wildlife habitat and agriculture. Concurrent reclamation will
begin after the first five years of mining. Approximately 600 linear feet of the
lake perimeter will be created each year. Creation of new wildlife habitat is
consistent with this policy of the General Plan.
Mr. Troester said that the 45 acres of processing area would be reclaimed to agricultural
uses.
• Mr. Connell noted that in the Supplemental report, neighbors objected to the lake due to
the mosquitoes.
Mr. Troester said that may be a valid concern and that it could be addressed in the report
that goes to the Planning Commission with the mining project.
Finding 4: That cancellation will not result in non contiguous patterns of urban
development, in that:
a) The majority of the adjacent property is farmland enrolled in the Williamson Act.
The proposed land use following the partial cancellation is for a sand and gravel
operation. Once mining is complete, the land will be reclaimed as open space
(Draft EIR, § 4.2.2, p. 4.2-6, Reclamation Plan, p. 10). The processing area will
be reclaimed for agricultural uses (Draft EIR, § 4.2.2, p. 4.2-6). There is no
anticipated actual or pending urban development in the project area.
b) The cancellation and alternative use will not generate ."non contiguous urban
development' because there is no evidence that adjacent properties will be
developed in the foreseeable future. Prime agricultural lands enrolled in LCA
contracts surround the parcel to be removed from the LCA contract. These
surrounding prime agricultural properties act as a "buffer," preventing non
contiguous urban development for the foreseeable future, as discussed in the
M&T Chico Ranch Draft EIR cumulative impact analysis.. In terms of prime
• agricultural land loss, no significant cumulative land use impacts are expected to
result as a result of this project (Draft EIR, § 6.1.2, P. 6-3).
■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ April 18 2006 ■ Page 6 of 21 ■
C) The cancellation and alternative use will not result in non contiguous patterns of
urban'development by way of "significant growth -inducting impacts" (Draft EIR,
§ 6.2, p. 6-4). The proposed project will not result in a significant increase in
employment or any increase in housing. No new roads or public services would
be installed as a result of the project that will remove obstacles to growth. The
project would make available aggregate materials used in a variety of activities,
including road buildings and maintenance and construction. While the project
will make these materials available, it cannot be considered to be facilitating the
activities using aggregate materials. The project is not the only source of these
materials, and these activities will occur regardless of the availability of the
additional resources made available in this project. Therefore, the project would
not create environmental effects other. than those addressed in the Draft EIR
(DEIR, § 6.2, pp. 6-4 — 6-5).
d) The proposed use of the cancelled property as a sand and gravel mining operation
would discourage urban development in the immediate area surrounding the
project site, and thus, actually assist in the preservation of the prime agricultural
land surrounding the sand and gravel operation.
e) DOC's letter of November 28, 2005 takes the position that the M&T Chico Ranch
Mine will not generate urban development, stating that: "The proposed mining
operation is unlikely to result in urban development leading to the removal of
adjacent land from agricultural use. The proposed mining operation is consistent
• with the County's General Plan."
Mr. Skinner referred to a letter from Mr. Jones that makes a statement of spraying onto
adjacent land and spraying into an open pond or drainage swale. He said the neighbors
feel it will make farming more difficult.
Mr. Breedon said the by-pass channel referred to by•Mr. Jones is only intended to be used
in the event of a flood.
Chairman Price said Mr. Jones was concerned with where the by pass channel was shown
on the map, saying that it appeared to straddle his property line.
Mr. Breedon said the exhibit should be amended and done as part of the Planning
Commission's action.
Mr. Skinner said if the canal is used in a flooding situation, no matter which it is no one
could spray adjacent to it.
Mr. Connell said in relation to the agricultural runoff that could end up in the slough and
be washed out, this is an active slough. He said if the slough is disturbed, sediment could
be a serious issue.
• Mr. Calarco said as the Committee evaluates the findings as they relate to the purpose of
the Williamson Act, there is an important distinction between this Committee's role as
recommendation to the Board in the act of cancellation verses potential CEQA.impacts
■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ April 18 , 2006 ■ Page 7 of 21 ■
•
•
related to the conditional Use Permit and the project which is evaluated by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Skinner asked with regard to this Committee's job today, if issues related to runoff,
sediment, would not be germane to our decision, but dealt with by another process.
Mr. Calarco said if the comments expressed are about the potential environmental effects
of the mining operation, that would be addressed in the evaluation of the Conditional Use
Permit by the Planning Commission and the EIR.
Mr. Troester said if the Board of Supervisors wishes to approve this project they would
need to find that the Environmental Impact Report was adequate to substantiate the
cancellation as well.
Mr. Johnson discussed the fact that the issue of prime agricultural land verses non -prime
agricultural land is a problem.
Mr. Bailey said that members of the public might wonder how. can you have so much
additional traffic and not be considered as an increase in urbanization of the area. He
said under the Williamson Act they are constrained to what that definition is and
unfortunately traffic is not one of those aspects.. He said that traffic does not mean urban
development.
Mr. Connell said one issues is the impact on neighboring farmland making it more
difficult to farm. He said one thing that was not mentioned that has been an issue in other
areas is the additional dust that is generated by a gravel operation and dust could be a
problem for neighboring.orchards.
Finding 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 land would provide
more contiguous patterns of urban development (GC §51282(b)).
a) The stated objective of the proposed project is to provide aggregate for the City of
Chico and Butte County consumption area. The distance to these markets is
important in determining the feasibility and environmental impacts of an
aggregate mine. No other potential aggregate mine sites have been identified in
close proximity to the M&T Chico Ranch site that could serve the Chico and
Butte County market demand. The nearest alternative mining sites are .located
approximately 10-20 miles west of the site, in Glenn County.
b) Use of these Glenn County aggregate reserves to serve the City of Chico and
Butte County demand would be cost prohibitive and environmentally
disadvantageous due to the increased haul distance, resulting in increased air
pollutants generated.
C) The proposed project site is consistent with the. stated use objectives, in that it
contains high quality aggregate reserves that are already secured by.the applicant.
■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ April 18, 2006 ■ Page 8 of 21 ■
The proposed project site is also consistent with project objectives in terms of
anticipated approval and operation periods.
Mr. Troester added the following substection to this finding of: The proximity of the
proposed M&T-Baldwin aggregate mine site to the City of Chico market (approximatelyl0-
mile haul) makes it more suitable as an aggregate source for that market than the existing
sources located in Glenn County (Valley Rock, approximately 18 -mile haul), Tehama/Butte
County line (Pine Creek Mine approximately 15 -mile haul), and Green Rock Mine
(approximately 16 -mile haul). The opening of the M&T site for aggregate production is
expected to result in direct and indirect benefits including decreases in fuel consumption
and truck exhaust air pollutants, and decreased cost of aggregates for construction and
infrastructure projects in the community. An adequate local supply of aggregate for the
Chico community is critical to provide for future building and infrastructure needs.
Mr. Breedon pointed out an error on the aggregate mining location map that the Luhr Rock
Quarry is no longer active.
Mr. Troester said the map that the Committee is looking at is a reduction of a larger map
which is posted on the wall.
Mr. Connell said in looking at the map that was put forward it appears that the M&T Chico
• mine is going to be the closest one to the needs of Chico and he was not sure that was really
the case. He said the growth in the Chico area is on the north edge of the urban edge and
that is 5 miles north. He said the distance to Pine Creek, north Chico, is 10 miles and the
distance M&T is 15 miles. Discussed the need for rock for the development of Highway
149 and M&T is closer than the nearest quarry in Glenn County area. He said Highway 149
is 10 miles closer to Lucky 7 and other.quarries over on the east side that can serve the needs
of Highway 149 development.
Mr. Troester said with regard to . the information provided on the 149 expansion, it was
provided mostly to show that there are significant infrastructure projects which can come
along in the County and rapidly deplete existing supplies. He said it is undesirable to
transport aggregate the distance from Glenn County.
Mr. Breedon noted that the Martin Marietta quarry is interested in providing aggregate to the
Highway 149 project.
Mr. Bailey said there is conflicting information on whether or not Butte County is in
desperate need of aggregate and how soon are we going to deplete our supplies. He asked if
non -renewal was better than immediate cancellation. He said there is no evidence that
aggregate will disappear in the next 10 years. He said if Butte County is going to be
desperate for aggregate supplies in the next 10 years, then the aggregate from this pit should
go to Butte County only.
• Mr. Troester said that Mr. Bailey's supply analysis would be critical, if the Committee was
considering a finding that this cancellation is in the public's interest, but the category of
■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ April 18 , 2006 ■ Page 9 of 21 ■
findings that staff is recommended the Committee consider are only those of consistency
with the Williamson Act. Consistence finding do not include a finding that there is a critical
shortage of aggregate in Butte County. He said this was brought forward to show that there
are no other "proximate" mines within a 10 mile haul distance of the market in Chico.
Mr. Bailey asked if the State's study on aggregate'and availability indicate that the M&T
site was a site of interest.
Mr. Troester said yes it did, and that the aggregate study that was done was done specifically
regarding this site and the conclusion was that the site was given a MRZ-2A classification.
He explained the classification.
Mr. Bailey asked if any areas outside of the project area determined to be MRZ-2A.
Mr. Breedon said the classification was based on an individual application and they only
studied the subject property.
Mr. Troester said that Butte County could benefit from a County -wide survey.
Mr. Breedon said they have asked the State to do a survey of Butte County and the State has
not responded.
• Mr. Bailey asked if there was proof that there was no proximate non -contracted land that
could be suitable for this project.
Mr. Troester said staff is recommending that there is substantial evidence in the record to
make the finding.
Mr. Bailey asked besides the project site, what evidence do you have that. there is no
proximate land available.
Mr. Troester said lacking the type of comprehensive study that was done in Glenn County;
there is not that kind of evidence.
Mr. Connell said in Mr. Jones' letter it focuses on aggregate deposits in the region and has
spoken with other gravel operators. He said it appears that there are other sources. He said
he would have trouble making the finding for immediate cancellation.
Mr. Troester believed it was accurate to state that relative to other known sites, this site
provides a shorter haul distance.
The hearing was opened to the public.
• Jeff Dorso, representing Baldwin Contracting, said 41 — non -renewal passed; 42 — evidence
has been provided to support cancellation of the contract. He said whether this is prime land
or not is immaterial. He said the consistency finding is whether this cancellation will result
■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ April 18, 2006 ■ Page 10 of 21 ■
•
in the removal of adjacent land from agricultural use. #3 — was straightforward; #4 — said
the cancellation will not result in non contiguous patterns of urban development, the issue of
pesticide and the by-pass channel should be determined by the Planning Commission; #5 —
Mr. Jones' letter highlights the issue that there is substantial evidence within the EIR, etc.
showing that a large portion of gravel is imported to Butte County. He said there are
aggregate demand situations that they can not plan for such as a roadway project, flood
events, etc.
Rene Vercruyssen said there is a request by Baldwin in process for getting a mining permit
on the M&T Ranch property. He said the Williamson Act Contract allows mining with a
permit from the County. He said Baldwin has elected to cancel a portion of the contract. He
said that DOC has stated that the findings could be made and he asked that the Committee
recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors.
Ron Jones discussed the property line being straddled by the mine by-pass channel. He
noted that in the application for cancellation it asked to look at both the need for the
aggregate and Williamson Act requirements. He talked about whether Chico needs gravel
and where the County should look for the aggregate. He said just 15 miles north of Chico at
the Pine Creek Plant; Mr. Roney has 20 million tons of gravel permitted right now. He
discussed the future plans of Mr. Roney and the output from other quarries in the area such
as Green Rock Quarry (Martin Marietta). He discussed the haul distance. He said it
depends on where you measure from. He discussed the haul routes that would need to be
taken. He did not think there was a gravel shortage in Butte County.
Karen Read said it was her understanding that prime agricultural land had to be returned to
prime agricultural at the end of the project. She said open wetlands do not equal prime
agricultural land. She was concerned with the trucks driving through Durham. She said
dust is an issue. She said the Highway 149 project contract has already been awarded and is
a moot point.
Jim Bremmer said there are walnuts and almonds one mile south of this project site. He said
the land is prime agricultural land and the problem is with the management.
Ken Reimers said that if this cancellation is approved, the Assessor's Office will need an
accurate survey of the property with boundaries that "close.".
Don Rodgers said the EIR has not been adopted or certified. He said the M&T Ranch was
put into the Williamson Act because it is prime agricultural land. He discussed the soil on
the property. He discussed the placement of the Greenline because this is prime land to be
protected. Discussion on the farming all around this property. He was concerned with the
fluids from the trucks such as oils, diesel, hydraulic fluids, etc.
Mr. Breedon said the Greenline is a County General Plan policy that pertains to urban
. development and mining is considered a secondary use in the Orchard and Field Crops
designation.
■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ April 18, 2006 ■ Page 11 of 21 ■
a
Mr. Rodgers asked about the impact to the neighborhoods, i.e., the road damage and the air
pollution from the trucks.
Jan Holman said regarding whether this will lead to a reduction in agricultural uses is not
immaterial. She said it was stated .that the channel is only 15 feet off the property line and
anyone that farms almonds knows that spray applications have to be 100 feet away from the
channel. She discussed the dust issue. She said regarding the distance from the project site
to the customers, on the roads the trucks will cause a lot of damage. She felt there would be
contamination of the ground water. She said. the need for the gravel has not been proven.
Jan Davis said she lives on Chico River Road. She challenged the Committee to drive down
the roads while gravel trucks are on them. She was against this project.
Frank Prentice, lives adjacent to the proposed mine, said he was concerned. He said this is
the same old situation, a large company comes in, pays lawyers to take 106 acres out of the
Williamson Act. He said there is plenty of gravel in this County. He asked who is going to
rebuild the roads when the trucks destroy them. He thanked Mr. Connell and Mr. Bailey for
making clarification on prime agricultural land. He felt the haul map was a joke.
BREAK - 10:45 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.
Jan Davis said she would like to be notified of the next Planning Commission and Mining.
Committee meeting. Her address is 2880 Chico Drive, Chico, CA 95928.
The next Mining Committee meeting will be on May 5, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. in the Board of
Supervisors Room.
Jeff Dorso said the Committee needs to focus on the issues at hand regarding consistency
with the cancellation. He reiterated the issues.
The hearing was closed to the public and comments confined to the Committee and staff.
Mr. MacKenzie said the Committee is here today to make a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors. He said in order to find that it is appropriate they need to make a finding as a
Committee that all five of the findings have been met. He said all five findings must be
evaluated in totality.
Chairman Price went through the findings:
#1 -issue ok,
#2 — Mr. Connell said it states that cancellation will not likely cause removal of adjacent
lands from agricultural use. He said it is possible to find that this is the case.
■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ April 18 , 2006 ■ Page 12 of 21 ■
•
Mr. Skinner said they are focused on the Williamson Act, but there are valid concerns
outside of the Williamson Act. He said he could find that #2 is consistent.
#3 — Mr. Connell said this finding could be opened to interpretation. He said it will be the
removal of 106 acres and 45 acres in non -renewal. He said reclamation to prime agricultural
land is not possible. This is in an area west of the Greenline, designed for agricultural use
on prime agricultural land: He said the DOC does not consider the reclamation of this land
to not be suitable for agricultural purposes and, therefore, not suitable for the Williamson
Act, then reclaiming this land as a wildlife habitat also does not move in the direction that
the County is trying to move.
Mr. Skinner said they have a situation where there is a contract that was signed which
permitted the use of mining for this land for gravel. He said that a contract is a contract
even though policies have changed in the meantime.
Mr. Connell agreed with Mr. Skinner that if the State enters into a Williamson Act
contract and the contract permits the extraction of gravel, then it would seem that gravel
mining is consistent under the contract. He did not like when the State tries to change the
rules on an existing contract. He said the way to avoid dealing with the State is to ask for
immediate cancellation and that is what they are addressing today.
IDMr. Johnson said cancellation was the best way to go about doing what the applicant
proposes.
#4 - Chairman Price said he has environmental issues which have to do with actual
practices that are proposed and not the pattern of urban development. .
#5 - Mr. Johnson said you can have a gravel mine anywhere. He said there is no data
stating potential for a gravel pit anywhere else. (Hard to hear — no mic on)
Chairman Price said this is the information they have available.
Mr. Skinner agreed that they have to make their decision on the information that is
available.
Mr. Connell said this finding is real difficult to make. There is other land within
economic reach. He could not say this was applicable. He said in this case he was not sure
they could say there was no proximate land that has the same resource that can't be reached
within the same distance.
Mr. Bailey said he could not say one way or the other that there couldn't be gravel
resources elsewhere. He said there are similar areas to the north of the project with the same
characteristics as this property. Chairman Price agreed.
■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ April 18 , 2006 ■ Page 13 of 21 ■
• the relationship between this Committee and
Mr. Calarco described the process and p
the Board of Supervisors. He asked if there was any interest in requesting additional
information.
Mr. Johnson (no mic) said there was not sufficient information to make this finding.
He said they are trying to conform to the States standards and he did not want a potential
law suit because they did not hold to a higher standard.
Mr. MacKenzie said legally they need "substantial" evidence in support of each of
these five findings, in order to make the recommendation to the Board. He said the question
of whether there is substantial evidence on both sides is a different question. He said if the
Committee does not feel that there is substantial evidence, they shouldn't make the finding.
Mr. Johnson asked with the information they have, is it legally defensible to support
this finding against the State?
Mr. MacKenzie said that it was really a question of when this goes to the Board of
Supervisors, they will want to know if the Committee considered all the facts.
Mr. Connell said the way he looks at #5 is that there is sufficient evidence to suggest
that they can find that there is proximate non -contract land which is available and suitable
for the proposed use. He said there are other rock quarries in the area that provide gravel.
Chairman Price asked Counsel the definition of proximate.
Mr. MacKenzie said for a mining operation, the price of the gravel doubles every 25
miles you have to haul it. He said they might want to look at where the aggregate might be
used and how far they have to go.
Mr. Troester pointed out that Finding #5 speaks of the suitability of the land, and in
this case the applicant has provided support and evidence that this land is suitable by
undertaking the report that was commissioned in 2000. He suggested the definition of
suitable might also enter into, this analysis of whether there is proximate available non -
contracted land.
Mr. Breedon said an important aspect is that DOC has classified this area as an
important gravel resource.
Mr. Skinner said the Committee seems to be stuck on 45 only. He asked if the
Committee wanted more information or do they have enough.
Chairman Price asked what further information they would need.
Mr. Calarco felt there was sufficient information available. He said a practical
approach is that if other lands are available do they have the same conditions. He did not
think it was fair to ask for a complete analysis of the County by DOC or the applicant.
■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ April 18, 2006 ■ Page 14 of 21 ■ .
•
Mr. Skinner asked if what Mr. Calarco is saying, is if the Committee were requested a
complete analysis of aggregate availability, would that be more than what is necessary.
Mr. Calarco said "yes". He said there has been evidence submitted on the non -
contracted land and that this Committee can make a decision:
Mr. MacKenzie discussed another case to the south with the same type of gravel.
Something the Committee might want to know is if the mines that are shown on the map are
on contracted or non -contracted land. Another thing they might want to know is, do the
mines have the same type of aggregate. He said a third thing they might want to know is, if
those supporting are available to this project proponent. He said he asked DOC what does
available mean.
Chairman Price. asked if there was a motion to request more information.
Mr. Skinner said it would be helpful to know if the other mines are on contract lands.
Chairman Price said the three points were available to the proponent, suitable and non
contracted or contracted lands.
Mr. Bailey said the Assessor's Office is frequently asked to review property values
based on gravel under loam on the properties near drainage ways or flood zones. He said it
would be simple to request more information on adjacent properties. He encouraged non-
renewal verses cancellation. He said there appeared to be no effort to look for property
outside of this site.
Mr. Calarco said, in summary, the Committee agrees that Findings, 1-4 are consistent
and have no issue with them, but do have an issue making Finding 5.
It was moved by Mr. Connell, seconded by Mr. Skinner, and carried to recommend to
the Board of Supervisors denial of the tentative contract cancellation, with the Committee
unanimously agreeing to Findings 1-4, and the majority unable to support Finding 5.
Mr. Johnson asked if this would preclude the applicant from coming back..
Mr. -MacKenzie said "no."
AYES: Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Connell, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Daley, and Chairman Price
NOES: Mr. Calarco
ABSENT: No one
ABSTAINED: No one
■ Land Conservation Committee ■ Minutes ■ April 18 , 2006 m Page 1.5 of 21. 0 `