Valley Fire Long-Term Recovery Task Force meets May 3

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – The next Valley Fire Long-Term Recovery Task Force meeting will be held Tuesday, May 3, at 6 p.m.

The location of the meeting is the Cobb Elementary School, 15895 Highway 175.

The meeting is open to all members of the public.

Lake County Administrative Officer Carol Huchingson said the task force meetings will be suspended after the May meeting.

“Right now the best thing the county can do to keep the recovery moving forward is allow staff to concentrate on their work responsibilities,” Huchingson said.

She added, “County staff is not just occupied with recovery matters, but also must continue to perform their job duties that existed before the Valley fire. We need to give them time to get their heavy workloads completed.”

In an effort to help fire survivors continue to have access to the appropriate task force members, an information sheet with contact information will be distributed at the meeting, and will then subsequently be posted at www.LakeCountyRecovers.com .

The public also may attend the Lake County Board of Supervisors’ meetings on Tuesday mornings to hear updates on the recovery response and provide public input.

The dates and times of recovery reports can be determined by checking the board agendas at www.co.lake.ca.us or the posted agendas at the Lake County Courthouse at 255 N. Forbes Street in Lakeport.

Recovery reports will not be made at every board meeting.

If the public is unable to attend the Tuesday morning meetings, they can be live-streamed at www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Boards/Board_of_Supervisors/calendar.htm .

Channel 8, Lake County’s Public, Education and Government (PEG) television channel, also provides live coverage of the meeting for those who have cable service.

Lake County Planning Commission denies Middletown Dollar General store proposal

LAKEPORT, Calif. – For a Texas-based developer seeking to build a new Dollar General store in Middletown, it was déjà vu all over again on Thursday when the Lake County Planning Commission unanimously turned down the proposal, just 11 months after it had turned down a similar project in Kelseyville by the same company.

After close to two and a half hours of discussion and public input, the commission denied Cross Development's major use permit application to build the 9,100-square-foot store at 20900 Highway 29.

Cross Development has so far built two stores for Dollar General in Lake County. Those stores opened last year in Clearlake Oaks and Nice.

Key objections cited by both community members and the commission on Thursday focused on the project's conflicts with the Middletown Area Plan as well as impacts on existing local businesses that are struggling in the wake of the Valley fire.

Another key issue was the accuracy of an economic report Cross Development had completed in April 2015, which said that the store would be serving some 2,700 homes within a five-mile radius.

Cross Development representative Joe Dell acknowledged that the study has not been updated since the Valley fire, which destroyed an estimated 1,300 south county homes. However, Dell maintained that enough residents remain to make the store viable.

County planning staff have told Lake County News that the corporation's store layout model has not fit with county planning guidelines, and that even though Cross Development reoriented the store, it still was not satisfactory.

The plan called for a store with dimensions of 70 feet by 130 feet. As proposed, it would have been oriented sideways with the 70-foot-long side facing Highway 29, Dell said.

He said that, if approved by the commission, the plan would go into the building permit phase, which would address issues like drainage and grading plans more in-depth.

In the last few days, he said the architect had come up with some new ideas, including new elevations, the addition of shutters and a full-length canopy, wood siding around the front entrance and more earth tone colors, which he suggested was closer to the Middletown Area Plan design guidelines.

Dell argued that the store would bring a mix of retail merchandise to Middletown that isn’t already available. “The store itself, I think, is a great fit for the community.”

The opinion of the community members who attended, however, was almost unanimously the opposite.

Concerns included the impact on existing businesses, such as Hardester’s, as well as the location in an area near schools that already has high traffic volumes, beliefs that Dollar General as a company is predatory and sells cheap goods, impacts on nearby St. Helena Creek, the desire by some residents to have a park on the site, the lack of an updated economic study and the perception that the store would be an intrusion in a community attempting to rebuild after last year’s devastating fire.

Middletown Area Town Hall Chair Fletcher Thornton said the group has had emotional meetings about the store, beginning last year. Citing the town’s diversity, he said the design didn’t add to the town’s sense of time and place.

“We want to make sure we get it right if we can,” he said.

Referring to the Middletown Area Plan, Thornton emphasized that the design was an issue, and that it needs to fit with the community.

Victoria Brandon, speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club Lake Group – which first began raising issues with the project last year – also cited inconsistency with the Middletown Area Plan as well as the Lake County General Plan, which she said requires that new development hold to the area’s heritage and be compatible with its context.

“This is a great big inconsistency, right in the middle of town,” Brandon said.

Middletown resident and former MATH Board member Charlotte Kubiak said the store would permeate an image of poverty and economic distress in the town.

Ken Gonzales, another former MATH Board member, said he has visited places like New Orleans, where Dollar Generals are not allowed, and Santa Fe, where the stores are kept out of the historic district.

Greta Zeit, who owns a bed and breakfast in Middletown, said she was on the advisory committee that created the Middletown Area Plan.

That committee, Zeit explained, didn’t want to see formula franchise stores in the community. “This is not something we want in Middletown. I can’t be emphatic enough.”

Middletown businesswoman and supervisorial candidate Monica Rosenthal said she was disturbed that Cross Development would expect the commission to evaluate the project based on inadequate and incomplete plans.

She said the Middletown Area Merchants Association has taken a stand against the project, and she read from a letter submitted by the association to the commission, which stated that the group had “serious misgivings” about the project based on its research of the associated documents as well as the county planning guidelines.

“As Middletown is the gateway to South Lake County, it is imperative that we maintain and continue to develop it as a charming, historic town by following the design guidelines specified by the community via the Middletown Area Plan, adopted August 17, 2010. Our future well-being as a community and as a county depend on it,” said the letter, signed by the association’s nine-member board of directors, which includes Rosenthal.

The letter also included 16 bullet points with areas where the project would violate the plan, from design to safe pedestrian access, colors and building orientation.

Artist Lisa Kaplan called the store plan an “intrusion” in the name of economic development, adding that existing businesses were struggling in the wake of the Valley fire.

“We’re not going to recover in six months, OK? It's going to take us awhile to rebuild,” she said, adding, “We want to grow from within.”

Thornton, returning to the microphone to speak as a private citizen and not the MATH representative, said it’s not true that there are no community members who support having the store explaining that he knows several community members who are fine with the store coming to town.

Responding to the concerns and criticisms, Dell said his firm was following the use permit process to the best of its ability. He said there is limited commercial property available in Middletown, and the site is excellent for retail thanks to its visibility and high traffic counts.

He went on to say that the project had been waiting a year for consideration – it had been placed on hold at the request of county staff in the months following the Valley fire – and that his company was entitled to due process. Dell added that other projects have moved through planning steps more quickly.

Additionally, he suggested that the commission was trying to dictate what kind of retail is allowed, rather than sticking to merely planning and zoning concerns.

Members of the commission clearly took issue with some of Dell's statements.

Commissioner Bob Malley asked Dell if he remembered what he had said to him the last time he had brought a project forward, referring to the May 2015 commission hearing in which Dell's proposal for a store in Kelseyville, across from the high school, also was denied.

Malley said that three of the four sites that have either been built on or considered so far for Dollar General stores have been near schools. He said that's why the Kelseyville store proposal was denied and, likely, why the Middletown plan wouldn't be approved either.

Dell said they were not targeting schools. “I think that's a gross overstatement.”

Malley went on to point out that it would be several years before the south county's population returns due to the fire, and questioned how the store could be justified in light of that.

In turn, Dell said the services were needed. He also claimed that the roughly two dozen community members who had come to speak against the store were the minority.

Due to the traffic concerns and school location, Malley called the project “a poor match.”

Commission Chair Joe Sullivan, who represents District 1 – which includes the Middletown area – said the commission does more than look at zoning, and also considered economics.

Sullivan explained that it was critical to abide by the Middletown Area Plan on projects like this – especially during the community's rebuilding – otherwise the community could end up with things it didn't want.

Dell replied that the Middletown Area Plan guidelines were not requirements, with Sullivan asking if he just didn't want to talk about the concerns.

Dell said they could try to get the building reoriented, and Sullivan pointed out that the concerns with the store's design had been brought to him previously.

The commission subsequently voted unanimously to approve the three separate motions offered by Commissioner Don Deuchar denying the mitigated negative declaration, the use permit and design review.

As the room cleared, Dell – still seated before the commission – told planning staff he intended to appeal the decision, as he had done last year in the case of the Kelseyville store. That 2015 appeal ultimately was denied by the Board of Supervisors in August.

Dell stayed on to ask the commission for a parcel map allowing a split of the 3.7-acre property where the store was proposed to be built into two parcels.

The plan had called for building the store on less than an acre of that property, and the commission 5-0 voted to approve the parcel map to divide it.

That action would put Cross Development in position to move forward on its building plans should the Board of Supervisors grant its appeal.

Cross Development has still another proposal for a Dollar General store working its way through the planning process.

Still looking to locate a store in the Kelseyville area, that plan calls for building a store at 9781 Point Lakeview Road in the Clear Lake Riviera, as Lake County News has reported.

County planning staff have said that project is still a few months out from consideration by the planning commission.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

STATE: Cal Fire investigation blames power lines for Butte fire, agency to seek $90 million from PG&E

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA – After a thorough investigation, Cal Fire said Thursday that it has determined that the 2015 Butte fire was sparked by a tree that came into contact with a Pacific Gas & Electric Co. power line.

Cal Fire and the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors also said Thursday that they will pursue millions of dollars in compensation from PG&E as a result of the fire.

The Butte fire began Sept. 9 – three days before the Valley fire was sparked in Lake County – and burned for 22 days, spreading into Calaveras County before the blaze was fully contained at 70,868 acres. 

The fire became the seventh most destructive wildfire in California’s history. Two civilians lost their lives and more than 900 structures were destroyed by the fire.

At its peak, nearly 5,000 firefighters battled the blaze. Resources included 519 fire engines, 18 helicopters, 8 airtankers, 92 hand crews, 115 bulldozers and 60 water tenders.

Cal Fire investigators were dispatched as part of the initial response to the Butte fire and immediately began working to determine the origin and cause of the fire. 

The ensuing investigation uncovered evidence that contact between a tree and a PG&E power line near Butte Mountain Road in Amador County, near the city of Jackson, sparked the fire.

Under California’s Health and Safety Code, Cal Fire has the ability to seek recovery of costs incurred battling wildfires that are determined to be sparked due to negligence or violations of the law.

Cal Fire said it will seek to recover firefighting costs in excess of $90 million from PG&E.

In addition, Cal Fire has submitted the Butte fire investigation report to the district attorneys of Amador and Calaveras counties for their review.

The final report can be found at http://calfire.ca.gov/fire_protection/fire_protection_firereports .

Asked when Cal Fire may have a determination on the cause of the Valley fire, spokesman Daniel Berlant told Lake County News that Cal Fire has not yet completed that investigation.

After the announcement, PG&E responded with a statement in which it thanked Cal Fire and the first responders, and said its thoughts and prayers continue to be with the victims and the communities that suffered losses as a result of the Butte fire.

“We are committed to doing the right thing for them and to promptly resolving their claims. We have already begun to address many claims,” the company said.

PG&E said it cooperated fully with Cal Fire's investigation of the fire and that it appreciated the thoroughness of its report.

“Based on our preliminary review, we accept the report's finding that a tree made contact with a power line, but we do not believe it is clear what caused the tree to fail or that vegetation management practices fell short,” the statement said.

PG&E said it monitors approximately 50 million trees a year and trim or remove more than one million trees annually.

“Our vegetation management program is among the very best in the industry and was expanded in 2014 in response to California's historic drought to include special air and foot patrols, funding for lookout towers and cameras for early fire detection and funding for fire fuel reduction and emergency access projects and public education,” the statement said.

“Despite these efforts, we recognize the hardships that this terrible fire caused and we are committed to helping our friends and neighbors recover,” PG&E added.

In response to Thursday's announcement by Cal Fire, the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors said it will pursue all legal avenues and seek hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation from PG&E.

The county said it also will seek an investigation, penalty and fines from the California Public Utilities Commission for PG&E’s responsibility for the fire’s devastation and damage.

“We are shocked and dismayed by the extent of PG&E’s negligence and will actively seek justice for Calaveras County and its citizens,” said Cliff Edson, chair of the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors. “We will work tirelessly to secure rightful compensation for the County and our residents who are still grieving from the loss of loved ones, their livelihoods, homes, belongings and mementos, and all destroyed and taken from them because of PG&E’s carelessness and negligence.”

“We hold PG&E management and executives responsible for what happened here,” added Edson. “We want to acknowledge the hard work and assistance of PG&E’s excellent field staff for all their efforts and dedication in response and the recovery in Calaveras County.  The working men and women of PG&E have made a difference and we thank them.”

County officials were informed by Cal Fire, California’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, that its investigation determined the fire was a direct result of PG&E’s "negligent maintenance" of electrical infrastructure and the surrounding vegetation.

“PG&E continues to raise our citizens’ utility rates at an alarming level,” Edson said. “But the company is also cutting risk management and safety expenditures at the same time.  What does that say about their ‘commitment to safety’? What does PG&E have to say to the people of Calaveras County today?”

In addition, officials said many Calaveras County residents still complain of residual complications from smoke inhalation and physical injuries as a result of the fire.

Efforts to clean up the debris in the wake of the fire took months due to treacherous conditions and dangerous terrain. The county sent teams of experts in to clean up affected areas as a free service for residents, adding to the total cost of the disaster.

PG&E has already begun offering $50,000 checks to victims without insurance. However, this only touches on PG&E’s liability for the irreparable harm it has caused county residents, officials said.

“Some residents have left our community and are not rebuilding because of the fire.  It has not only changed their lives forever – it has changed our community forever. Because of the fire, the county has lost – and will continue to lose – millions in tax dollars, property tax income, and other revenues because of PG&E’s fire. Our county has been forever scarred and socially and economically damaged because PG&E executives put their profits over our citizens’ safety,” added Edson.

“It is PG&E’s responsibility to make this right,” said Edson. “We want PG&E to recognize the extent of their fault in this tragedy and pay just compensation so that Calaveras County has the best possible chance to rebuild and recover from its devastation.”

In October, a group of more than 70 Butte fire victims also filed suit against PG&E, alleging that PG&E failed to keep vegetation trimmed and maintained so as to prevent contact with power lines, as Lake County News has reported.