The Lodge at Blue Lakes 707.275.2181





Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
www.inspirationsgallery.net
Shore Line Realty www.shorelineatthelake.com

Games

Arcade
Sudoku
Agreements for Mt. Konocti acquisition go to board Aug. 5 PDF Print E-mail
Written by Elizabeth Larson   
Wednesday, 23 July 2008

Image
From the property the county is seeking to purchase, there are spectacular views of the county and beyond. Photos courtesy of Kim Clymire.


LAKE COUNTY – The county's effort to acquire a large area of property on the top of Mt. Konocti will take its next step forward next month, when the Board of Supervisors holds a public hearing on the purchase.


The matter is scheduled for a hearing at 10:15 a.m. Tuesday, Aug. 5, during which the board will review and consider signing the purchase agreement reached between the county and the Fowler family, the property's current owners. At that time the board also will take public comment.


The county is currently pursuing the purchase of a 176-acre area on Buckingham Peak, which is the site of communications towers – and generates $75,000 in revenue annually – and an additional 1,512 acres encompassing a substantial area including the mountain's major peaks.


At a March 18 public hearing, the Board of Supervisors gave unanimous consent to moving forward with negotiations and setting aside $1.2 million to purchase the communications towers site.


Public Services Director Kim Clymire reported that, since then, the acquisition negotiating team – which includes Clymire, county Chief Administrative Officer Kelly Cox, County Counsel Anita Grant, and Supervisors Rob Brown and Ed Robey – successfully completed a recent round of negotiations with the Fowlers' representative, attorney Peter Windrem.


That agreement, which the Fowlers already have signed, is allowing the county to move forward with the acquisition, said Clymire.


Cox said the board will consider two actions on Aug. 5 – approving the actual purchase agreement for the tower site and considering the option agreement for the remaining 1,512 acres, at a price of $2.6 million.


The agreement calls for closing escrow on the 176-acre site within 60 days, said Cox. “It would be done right away, just as soon as we could close escrow.”


Purchase of the remaining property, said Cox, is supposed to be concluded by Sept. 15, 2009, although he said there is some “wiggle room” possible.


The county will be required to put $100,000 down on that part of the property, said Cox. “We're not about to lose $100,000 so we're definitely going to buy it.”


Clymire told Lake County News in a previous interview that the county is in discussions with the Bureau of Land Management about getting help from a property exchange program that could help fund buying the larger parcel.


There also will be local fundraising, with the assistance of the Lake County Land Trust, said Clymire.

 

Clymire said he also had applied to Congressman Mike Thompson, and US Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer for their assistance. “All three of them have expressed support for the acquisition.”


Cox said the county believe it's going to be able to secure some degree of both state and federal funding for buying the Mt. Konocti lands.


He said county representatives will meet with representatives from Thompson's and Feinstein's offices toward the end of August. There's also the possibility of bond funding, he added.


“We have a lot of work to do, but all signs are that there will be federal participation in this, and maybe state participation,” Cox said.


The Fowler family has owned the property for decades and gave the county the first opportunity to purchase the land in an offering made late last year, as Lake County News has reported.


For views from the top of the Mt. Konocti property, see the Mt. Konocti gallery, http://lakeconews.com/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,37/.


E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .


Discuss this article on the forums. (1 posts)

Trackback(0)
Comments (11)Add Comment
it should be the other...
written by smurf, July 23, 2008
way around, the tower parcel is less important, apparently the Fowlers are still jacking the county around on the other larger parcel so that deal is still in limbo. That's kind of a joke, there isn't much development potential so the actual market value of the land isn't that high, the Fowlers should stop playing games and stick with the deal they first offered instead of trying to milk the maximum out of the taxpayers for what is a white elephant for them.
...
written by bobfoster, July 23, 2008
That cannot possibly be Mt. Lassen pictured- it is approx. 230 miles to the north east from here
and of couse, would appear much smaller than the mountain shown. This view is looking north. The mountain shown is Snow Mountain, less than 50 miles from here. Also, the height of Mt. Konocti is not enough to see Lassen Peak over the intervening mountain ranges, due to the curvature of the earth.

Finally, if it were Lassen, it would be in the right side of the picture- not the left.

I believe the author was misled by the photographer.

Believe me, my attention to detail annoys me too.
Lassen removed
written by elarson, July 23, 2008
I've removed the Lassen reference, since it's in dispute. However, I have been told by more than one person that Mt. Lassen is visible from the top of Mt. Konocti.
...
written by mortis, July 23, 2008
I've seen Mt. Shasta from the top of Mt. St. Helena on a clear winter day, so it's conceivable. Mt. Lassen is over 10K feet tall. Snow Mountain is 50 miles due north of Konocti, but Lassen is about 120 miles north-east. From the top of Konocti, it would appear to be above Clearlake Oaks on a vector out over Indian Springs Reservoir. Konocti is higher than any of those ridges out there, so the only other issue is the curvature of the earth, at 8 inches per mile. .66 foot * 120 miles = 79.2 feet. The intervening mountains do cut off the lowest ~4K feet of the view, but you should be able to see it on a clear winter day, with the only limiting factor being atmospheric visibility, not the curvature of the Earth nor interposing mountains.
Let\'s confuse it some
written by Donna Christopher, July 23, 2008
more :wink: - it looks like Paradise Cove across the lake and the snow topped mountain is above and just to the left of what I guess is PC. Wouldn't that make the first ridge above that High Valley Ridge and the one behind it Bartlett Ridge? I'm thinking Snow Mtn also. I've had the pleasure of seeing Mt Diablo, the Sierras and Mt. K from up top Walker Ridge. On a clear day, you CAN see for ever smilies/cool.gif Course today, I can barely see the end of the street! Chunky Air S***s
...
written by bobfoster, July 23, 2008
At only 1,310.3 feet, Konocti is NOT high enough to see over the ridges to Lassen. If it were, it would be in the picture to the right, as a pointy peak. I defy anyone to come up with a single photograph from Konocti of Lassen Peak! In over a hundred years of photography, there would be at least one!

Lassen is a VERY recognizable mountain, and that ain't it.

My family has been in Northern California since 1839. We know our way around.

And finally, if Konocti had that kind of view at that low altitude, there would already be houses there. Cobb can't see Lassen, and it taller than Konocti.

And now, back to the war in Iraq.
...
written by mortis, July 24, 2008
Um, maybe you got 'lost' while getting around Northern California since 1839, because Mt. Konocti is 4,299 feet tall. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konocti. The elevation of Clear Lake is 1340 feet. Are you telling me that the summit of Konocti is below the level of the lake?

The mountain in the picture is definitely Snow Mountain. Lassen is not in the picture. The picture in question looks due north, as as I stated previously, that is not the correct vector to see Lassen. Also - Lassen is more than twice as distant, so it would be faint and small, even on a clear day and looking in the proper direction. Sheesh!

Cobb Mountain, at 4724 feet is even taller. I've never climbed it, but I have seen both Shasta and Lassen from Mt. St. Helena on clear winter days and it is only 4300 feet tall and more distant than Konocti. I doubt that Shasta can be seen from Konocti, due to Snow Mountain (possibly) being in the way, but Lassen should be visible, atmospheric conditions permitting...
...
written by Babswiggy, July 25, 2008
Does anyone know what the county is going to use the land for??
Do the math, convert meters to
written by Green Man, July 27, 2008
1310.3 is Konocti's height in meters.

1310.3 meters X 3.28084 feet/meter = 4299.88 feet.
...
written by mortis, July 27, 2008
perhaps, but he quoted the height in "feet". Irregardless, my point still stands...as Walker ridge would be ~1000m under that scenario...
Speaking of visible Northern California peaks...
written by Lutra, December 21, 2009
Does anyone happen to know about how late into an average year snow is visible on Snow Mountain? How about the considerably taller Yolla-Bolly Mountains?

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 23 July 2008 )
 
< Prev   Next >
TwinPine Casino & Hotel Wine Country's Favorite Playground
Sutter Lakeside Hospital
www.dougrhoadesforda.com
Powered By Page_Cache by Ircmaxell
Generated in 1.2449638843536 Seconds