In the 4-1 vote – with Supervisor Denise Rushing being the lone dissenter – the board denied the Sierra Club Lake Group's appeal of the Lake County Planning Commission's October decision to certify the final program EIR.
Still ahead is a board decision on the project itself. With the EIR appeal now settled, the project discussion comes next, and is set for 1:30 p.m. March 2.
The project proposal would include up to 650 homes, 325 resorts units, an 18-hole golf course, spa, commercial development, equestrian facility, parks and more on 860 acres along Hill Road in the north Lakeport area.
The board had first taken up the discussion at its Jan. 26 meeting, and at Rushing's request had put off deliberations and a decision in order for her to look more closely at the project's weighty environmental document – which is several hundred pages in size – in light of testimony given at the hearing.
She also wanted to look at how the document measured up to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and it was her opinion that the document in its current form didn't take up all the considerations that it should.
At the start of the discussion, Board Chair Anthony Farrington asked County Counsel Anita Grant if the board would create legal entitlements for the project if it certified the EIR. She said no.
In addition, she said the board could determine that no further environmental studies be done on the project's future phases, or that an initial environmental study be completed at every phase.
“So the certification isn't implying approval at any stretch of the imagination?” Farrington asked.
Grant said it does open the door to the project, which can't move forward without the EIR certification.
Rushing, who thanked fellow board members for the extra time, said she had three areas of concern that she thought were important to address.
They included what constituted an adequate EIR, what it would take to make the program EIR adequate for decision making and what obligation the board was making or implying by approving the EIR.
On the document's adequacy, she said the answers she received from Grant and from a CEQA attorney who works with the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) led her to conclude that a program EIR like that one done for Cristallago is meant to lead to a “go or no go” decision.
While there may be “other bites at the apple” with subsequent EIRs, this is the best opportunity to look at cumulative impacts, Rushing said. By the time future EIRs are done, the project will have too much momentum for modifications to occur, and Rushing felt all potential issues needed to be identified now.
Second, Rushing looked at what it would take to make the document adequate.
“It looks to me like this is a very, very large project with multiple phases, and not all of the phases are clearly understood,” she said.
She said there are important mitigations and analysis that shouldn't be deferred, and she said she had crafted a list of “go or no go” decisions, the biggest among them being whether or not there is enough water in a drought year to support the project.
Rushing also argued that there was too much oak woodland loss with the proposed plan, and that the 3-1 replanting ratio is the minimum, and more should be required.
The third concern related to the area's serpentine soils, and Rushing questioned if asbestos mitigation was even possible, as all of the grading can't be done at once.
She also raised issues about the project hooking into the Full Circle Project, which takes treated wastewater to The Geysers, and road impact fees. Rushing said there were some areas that could wait, including a concern about the number of rattlesnakes in the area.
She questioned the document's claim that air quality impacts were “less than significant.”
“I don't think this one's ready,” she said of the EIR.
However, Rushing said there were improvements to the document that, if made, could make it so she would vote for it.
Supervisor Jeff Smith also queried staff about whether the EIR commits the board to a course of action. Community Development Director Rick Coel said it's staff's understanding that it does not.
Farrington asked if the county can add on requirements like solar power. Coel said any policies the board sets would be applied to future development phases. Farrington suggested they should have a future discussion focused solely on the solar issue.
Rushing said Farrington had good questions about obligations. “While this does not legally bind us, it's not meant to allow us to defer the hard choices that would result in the go or no go decision,” she said.
In addition to wanting more information on water, oak woodland loss, greenhouse gases and asbestos mitigation, Rushing said they needed to remove all reference to an economic analysis that she believed was based on faulty assumptions. That analysis, staff said, was done by a consultant, not the developer.
Farrington asked Grant about beefing up language regarding serpentine soils, which he said are common in Lake County. He said the soils pose “a legitimate concern,” but shouldn't be used to raise fear among citizens. Farrington said he didn't see the soils as shutting down development in the county.
Looking at the March 2 hearing, Farrington said he expected to allow as much latitude as possible in that discussion, which will take up everything from politics to phasing to soils – and they may even need to send out a rattlesnake counter. He said there is going to be “much, much more” work to be done.
Planner Emily Minton said the greenhouse gas requirements include solar power generation equipment on community and commercial buildings to keep the greenhouse gas amounts low. If that is not required, they'll need to include other options.
Supervisor Jim Comstock moved to deny the Sierra Club's appeal and uphold the EIR's certification, which the board approved 4-1.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
