How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Updated Valley Oaks housing project gets back on planning track
MIDDLETOWN, Calif. – A south county housing and commercial development that was sidelined during the recession has reemerged and is once again moving through the planning process.
The Valley Oaks development is a mixed-use senior development that Santa Rosa-based Kimco Development Corp. is proposing to build on 150 acres at 18196 and 18426 South State Highway 29, Middletown.
The Lake County Planning Commission will hold a hearing on the development's final environmental impact report at 9:05 a.m. Thursday, May 28, in the Board of Supervisors chambers on the first floor of the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport.
The planning commission approved the project's draft environmental impact report, or EIR, in 2009, as Lake County News has reported.
“Everything was moving along great – except the economy,” said Community Development Director Rick Coel.
Coel said developer Ken Porter decided to put the project on hold until the economy improved.
Now, Porter has come back with a similar plan to the one he previously proposed, according to county Planner Keith Gronendyke, who is overseeing the application.
“The applicant wanted to have it moved forward,” Gronendyke said.
The plan as currently proposed would have 380 homes – built in six phases – along with a senior housing/assisted living facility, public open space, trails and park facilities, and a 31-acre commercial area fronting Highway 29, Gronendyke said.
It's essentially the same project as before, except with two changes, said Gronendyke.
Those changes are that the project will now be limited to residents age 55 and older, and Caltrans is considering a roundabout at Hartmann Road and Highway 29 rather than a signal. Those changes required some updates to the conditions of approval.
Porter confirmed to Lake County News that Valley Oaks, as currently envisioned, is to be a senior development.
However, he was unwilling to offer any further comment at this time, stating that until the project is approved he has no specific plans on moving forward.
District 1 Supervisor Jim Comstock said he thinks the Valley Oaks project is a good one, and ties in well with plans for the south county.
He also believes the move to having Valley Oaks be a senior community is the right one.
“There is no need for more single family homes right now,” Comstock said.
Coel said Kimco has worked out agreements with Hidden Valley Lake to let Valley Oaks residents use the golf course.
He said Valley Oaks promises to be the first mixed development the county had had, with both residential and commercial aspects, as well as a care facility and trails system, and undergrounded utilities.
“It’s kind of exciting,” said Coel.
Coel said the project is well thought out, and is more modern and akin to the types of developments seen in the rest of the state.
With the development's commercial component, it will offer south county residents more shopping options. That, he said, is a way to capture the commercial leakage from the south county, where much of the sales tax money goes to other areas in nearby counties.
“It's ambitious. I hope the best for him,” Coel said of Porter.
Concerns about the development from some corners appear to have been addressed.
“The Sierra Club has had a number of concerns about Valley Oaks, which we have been following for more than 10 years, but as it has evolved those concerns have largely been met, and we are now generally supportive of the project,” said group representative Victoria Brandon.
Brandon, who toured the site last week, said the project as it's now proposed is compatible with planning guidelines and smart growth principles.
She said it includes innovative protections for wildlife habit and “green” building features, such as high standards of insulation, energy star appliances, solar available on all houses, semi-prefabricated construction to minimize waste and low water native-plant landscaping.
Kimco also is proposing what Brandon called “really creative rerouting” of part of Coyote Creek to avoid the necessity of widening to meet 100-year flood standards that would have resulted in a lot of tree removal.
Coel said Coyote Creek is likely different than it was originally due to the dam and a lot of erosion that has taken place over the years. “It doesn't look very natural.”
He said the development's plan for moving the creek “will fix a lot of those problems,” and will include a linear trail system along the realigned creek.
The process will require a lot of permitting from state and federal agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, and will require amending the area's flood map, Coel said.
The US Army Corps of Engineers' Sacramento District reported that it is evaluating the Valley Oaks permit.
The agency said the project would result in impacts to 1.25 acres of Coyote Creek and 0.067 of an acre of seasonal wetlands.
As it's presently conceived, Brandon said, Valley Oaks “is likely to be an asset to the community.”
She added, “Unless some undesirable last minute changes have been introduced, we expect to express support at the May 28 Planning Commission meeting.”
At its Thursday meeting the commission is set to hold a public hearing on the project's final environmental impact report, as well as a general plan of development, rezones and a general plan of development for the project, as part of the work of certifying the final environmental impact report.
However, Coel said that, while the commission can move forward if it chooses to do so, he would be surprised if they did.
That's due, in part, to the fact that the commission has four new members since it last heard the project. As such, none of those newer members were involved in reviewing the draft EIR that the commission approved in 2009.
“Normally, a draft EIR and a Final EIR are heard by the planning commission within a few months, so there is continuity,” Coel said.
“There’s such a volume of information to go through,” that it would be a challenge for the commission to get through it in such a short amount of time, Coel added, explaining that commissioners have had the staff report for only a few weeks.
Coel said his goal was to have an initial meeting to walk the commission through the project and hear from Kimco Development.
Ultimately, it's up to the planning commission about whether or not it should certify the final EIR, but Coel said that a sample motion to do that isn't provided in the staff report for this week's meeting.
“It has a potential to be very nice,” Coel said of the project. “It's just got to be done right.”
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Clearlake City Council to consider negotiating with developer for airport property, discuss new city manager contract
CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The Clearlake City Council this week will begin discussing the proposal to reopen negotiations with a developer for the city's former airport property, a contract with a new city manager and updates to city marijuana cultivation rules.
The council will meet at 6 p.m. Thursday, May 28, in the council chambers at Clearlake City Hall, 14050 Olympic Drive.
On the agenda is a proposal for the city to re-enter into an exclusive negotiation agreement with Roseville-based Katz Kirkpatrick Properties for the nearly 26-acre property that formerly served as the city's airport, which is located west of Highway 53 between Highway 53, Old Highway 53 and the 18th Avenue extension.
City Manager Joan Phillipe said that while the item is going to be introduced this week, she plans to ask the council to put over a decision to its June 11 meeting in order for the city and Katz Kirkpatrick Properties to discuss some additional issues.
In 2007, the city and Katz Kirkpatrick Properties entered into an exclusive negotiation contract with the city for the Pearce Field airport property.
Then, in February 2010, the Clearlake City Council approved a plan to sell 15 acres of Pearce Field to KK Raphel Properties – one of the FHK Companies that includes Katz Kirkpatrick Properties – which planned to develop a shopping center with Lowe's as an anchor tenant, as Lake County News has reported.
The council approved the project moving forward without a full environmental impact report. That resulted in a lawsuit filed the following month by the Sierra Club Lake Group, which alleged the city had violated state law by not requiring an EIR.
The city and the Sierra Club subsequently settled the suit, with one of the provisions being that if the development went ahead, a full EIR would be completed, Phillipe told Lake County News.
However, the recession and the end of redevelopment caused the plan not to move forward, Phillipe said.
Phillipe arrived as city manager in October 2011. Since that time, she said she's had conversations on and off with the Katz Kirkpatrick regarding the property and the firm's continued interest in developing it.
As a result of the dissolution of redevelopment, the city had to complete a long range plan for dealing with former redevelopment-held assets. That plan has since been completed and approved by the state, Phillipe said.
She said the plan mandates that the city sell former redevelopment agency-held properties, including the Pearce Field land, the former Austin Resort property across from Clearlake City Hall and a 28-acre piece of property on Highway 53.
Phillipe said the city has moved forward to complete appraisals on those properties. She said the Austin Resort property likely will not be sold right away while the market continues to improve.
There also are smaller properties including residential lots that the city will be required to sell, but which Phillipe said haven't been appraised yet. “They don't carry the value that these larger parcels do.”
After that plan was completed, Phillipe – pointing out that the council and the community have had a great deal of interest in something happening on the property – said she once again touched base with Katz Kirkpatrick. “There was still an interest there.”
Phillipe then introduced the developer firm's principal, Fred Katz, to City Attorney Ryan Jones, who – like Phillipe – has joined the city in the years since the city and the company reached the original agreement.
She and Jones then sat down and looked over the agreement that the city previously had approved with Katz Kirkpatrick, which already has done a lot of work on a proposed project and is willing to do the full environmental study, she said.
If both sides continue to be amenable to a plan, Phillipe said she will go back to the council with a proposal to let Katz Kirkpatrick fulfill the settlement agreement by proceeding with an EIR and resubmitting an application for developing the property.
New city manager contract, marijuana rules to be discussed
In other council news, a major item of business on Thursday will be the consideration of an employment contract with Greg Folsom, who has been selected to succeed Phillipe – who is retiring at the end of June – as Clearlake's new city manager.
Folsom has two decades of experience in government, particularly planning and economic development, the latter being a key in his selection, according to city officials.
He's currently the deputy director of economic development for Riverside County and a planning commission for the city of Menifee.
The proposed contract is for three years, with Folsom's proposed salary to be $110,000 annually plus benefits, with an annual performance review.
Folsom is expected to be in attendance at the meeting to introduce himself to the council.
Also on Thursday's agenda, the council is set to hold a first reading of an ordinance to finalize repealing a city ordinance passed in February that banned all marijuana cultivation in the city.
That February ordinance was challenged by a referendum and, as a result, the council repealed it at its May 14 meeting. However, in her report to the council, Phillipe said that it's appropriate to pass another ordinance to repeal it in order “to provide an appropriate document trail of the Council's actions.”
The council also will consider another ordinance to update the city's existing marijuana cultivation rules to prohibit commercial cultivation on vacant parcels and limit cultivation amounts.
In other business, the council will discuss a proposed city cosponsorship with the Koi Nation for Native American Day on July 18 and consider a request for a waiver of user fees for the senior center; consider appointing an ad hoc committee to review a proposal for universal waste collection services within the city limits; and consider adopting a resolution appropriating funds from the Series A bonds issued by the former redevelopment agency for projects and land acquisition to implement portions of the Lakeshore Drive Downtown Corridor Plan as well as possible infrastructure project on the Highway 53 corridor.
Before the open portion of the meeting convenes, the council also will hold a closed session at 5:30 p.m. Thursday to discuss a lawsuit filed against the city over the ordinance banning marijuana cultivation that it repealed earlier this month.
On the meeting's consent agenda – items considered noncontroversial and usually accepted as a slate on one vote – are warrant registers; minutes of the May 14 council meeting; minutes of the April 8 Lake County Vector Control Board meeting; and a request to schedule council budget workshops at 6 p.m. on June 4 and June 18.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Lake County Planning Commission to discuss Valley Oaks, Dollar General proposals
LAKEPORT, Calif. – A south county development and a proposal to put a Dollar General store in Kelseyville will go before the Lake County Planning Commission on Thursday.
The commission will meet at 9 a.m. Thursday, May 28, in the Board of Supervisors chambers on the first floor of the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport.
At 9:05 a.m. the commission will hold a public hearing to consider certifying the final environmental impact report for the Valley Oaks Development proposal and making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
Kimco Development Corp. is proposing to build the mixed use senior development on 150 acres at 18196 and 18426 South State Highway 29, Middletown.
As part of the plan, Kimco is seeking a general plan amendment from agricultural and resource conservation to community commercial, high density residential, low density residential and resource conservation, and a rezone from “A” Agriculture, to “PDC-DR,” Planned Development Commercial-Design Review Combining District, “PDR-RD” Planned Development Residential-Residential Design Combining District and “O” Open Space.
The proposal also includes requesting a general plan of development to create the mixed use development consisting of up to 380 single family residential lots, a 3.54 acre medium density residential lot, a 2.53 senior housing/assisted living facility, public open space, trails and park facilities throughout the development, and a planned development commercial area of 31 acres fronting South State Highway 29.
Community Development Director Rick Coel told Lake County News that he does not expect the commission to certify the final EIR on Thursday.
He said a lot has changed on the commission since the county approved Valley Oaks' draft EIR in 2009. There are four new commissioners who he said he needs to get up to speed on the project, and so he expects it to be brought back for final action at a future meeting.
At 9:45 a.m. the commission will hold a public hearing to consider the Kelseyville Dollar General store plan.
Commissioners will consider a mitigated negative declaration based on an initial study for a major use permit sought by the Texas-based Cross Development, a developer firm that has acted on Dollar General's behalf in its Lake County projects.
Cross Development is seeking to build a 9,100-square-foot store at 4315 Douglas St. and 5505 Main
St., across from Kelseyville High School.
The Kelseyville Business Association hosted a town hall last week to discuss the proposal and gather input to submit to the commission, as Lake County News has reported.
Earlier this year, Dollar General opened its first Lake County stores in Nice and Clearlake Oaks.
Cross Development also has applied for permits for a store in Middletown. That application is still being processed, Coel said, and so it has not yet been scheduled to go before the commission.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Supervisors hold first vote on creating community choice aggregation program
LAKEPORT, Calif. – On Tuesday the Board of Supervisors approved the first reading of an ordinance to begin a community choice aggregation program, which seeks to increase the use of renewable energy in the county while lowering rates for residents and businesses.
The ordinance, which will return for a final reading next month, is meant to set up the program, with a proposed contract with the firm California Clean Power Corp. – a turnkey company that offers financing, support and ongoing management – still to be approved.
The board held an initial discussion of the program last week, during which it heard a presentation from California Clean Power's Chief Executive Officer Peter Rumble, who returned this week to answer questions.
The proposal Rumble's firm has put forward would reduce power rates by 2 percent for customers in the unincorporated county, for an anticipated annual savings to county residents of $750,000.
The county also would receive $2 million annually in revenue from the program, which would increase the county's mix of renewable energy to 33 percent and allow it to choose the source of its power.
Board Chair Anthony Farrington said he has received a lot of positive feedback regarding the program.
On Tuesday, board members also had before them a memo from California Clean Power that answered additional questions from the county and community members.
Among the questions the firm answered was one relating to low income rate assistance programs, which, according to the proposed agreement between the firm and the county, would require that “customers shall be offered electric rate schedules consistent with the electric rate schedules offered by PG&E.”
The memo said PG&E “CARE” program customers who are in the new county program would receive another 2-percent discount on top of what they currently get.
Farrington touted the program as a new source of public benefit money that offers the county the chance to purchase its own current solar array – the largest municipal solar array in the Western United States – and eventually to develop its own power facility.
He said representatives from the community choice aggregation programs in Marin and Sonoma counties contacted the county of Lake to encourage it to follow their models.
Farrington said a firm that states it also is a turnkey company like Rumble's, Community Choice Partners of San Francisco, has contacted the county to put forward its services.
County Administrative Officer Matt Perry said if the board approved the ordinance to implement the program, it would not bind the county to go with California Clean Power. He said county staff is continuing to investigate the program and the company.
Farrington said he wanted to know about Community Choice Partners and what they offer. Perry said it didn't appear the company offered financing, unlike Rumble's firm.
Of California Clean Power, Rumble explained, “We are self-financed, so there are no financing costs to the jurisdiction.” His company covers all financial and market risks, and guarantee benefits to the county through a contract.
During the discussion he explained that the community choice program was created by the state during the energy crisis 15 years ago in an effort to protect communities.
“It was intended to introduce both competition and control to the local market,” Rumble said.
Lower Lake resident Victoria Brandon asked the board to look at the alternatives closely, encouraging them to talk to Marin County. She worried that the board was making a decision based on a feasibility study created by California Clean Power.
Farrington said the county has looked at the model used by Marin and Sonoma. He said the county was not interested in a joint power authority model that would require financing and bringing on additional staff.
He said the program, as it's proposed for Lake County, would be streamlined, offer savings and bring in money that could be invested in the lake, which overall he believed offered a better option with a greater benefit.
In response to questions about how much is paid in Lake County for power generation, California Clean Power representative Shehzad Wadalawala explained that currently the county uses 400,000 megawatt hours annually, for a total of about $40 million in power costs.
Farrington noted during the meeting that the board is still considering California Clean Power's proposal. “There's no cloak and dagger mission here to circumvent any public process.”
If someone else who can provide the same exact services comes forward, Farrington said the county would be required to consider them.
Supervisor Jim Steele, who had written a letter to the editor criticizing the board for moving too fast on the proposal without enough community input, said that his concern about feedback from residents had been dealt with in the course of the meeting as well as through contacts with constituents since last week.
He was impressed with the ability to make inroads into power costs, which he said would be good for the county.
Steele wanted the contract with a provider to go through a thorough staff analysis to determine which company is the best and whether they have risk protection. He said there doesn't seem to be much of a track record with California Clean Power, but he was OK with going forward with the ordinance.
Farrington, who will be away for a geothermal conference next week, asked the board to continue the second reading to Tuesday, June 16.
That will allow staff to answer other questions and do further analysis, and look into the alternate company's proposal.
Unless another provider can offer the services, the proposed agreement would be brought back concurrently with the second reading of the ordinance, Farrington said. “Nobody's going to be in the dark.”
The board voted unanimously to advance the ordinance to a second reading timed for 9:15 a.m. June 16.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
Lake County Community Choice Ordinance
Lake County Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Study
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson