The vote – with Supervisors Anthony Farrington and Denise Rushing voting no – came after six hours of public testimony and board discussion.
As the testimony stretched farther into the evening, Farrington – who said he didn't agree with the project having larger residential density than resort units – offered alternatives for changing the project.
The development, slated to be built on 860 acres along Hill and Scotts Valley roads in north Lakeport, is proposed to have 650 homes, 325 resort units – including a hotel – plus an equestrian center, parks, a commercial development, conference center, spa and an 18-hole Jack Nicklaus signature golf course.
When Cristallago Development Corp. partner Matt Boeger said they believed they had reduced the residential component – which his team said was necessary to support the tens of millions of dollars necessary to build the resort's amenities – as far as they could to remain viable, Farrington said he wouldn't support the project.
Farrington had debated the project's financial projects with Boeger and his development team during the testimony.
They disclosed that the $47 million in estimated spending that the resort would bring in wouldn't be gross resort revenues but would be realized throughout the larger community.
Richard Warfel of Economics Research Associates, who explained the resort's financial makeup to the board, said Cristallago must be “affordable” and “family friendly,” with a golf course needed to attract visitors.
When Rushing pointed to the developers' own letters on the resort that referred to it as a “high-end destination resort,” Warfel said that, compared to the current resort stock in Lake County, it will be high end, but it will be “mid-market” compared to Pebble Beach or other world-class resort facilities.
Bob Rumfelt, a Lakeport City Council member, was one of the first people to the microphone during public comment to express support.
He read a letter from his colleague on the council, Roy Parmentier, who urged the board to give the project the go ahead. “The time to act is now,” Parmentier's letter concluded.
John Lee, who lives next door to the proposed project, said it was the kind of thing he had moved to Lake County to avoid. “I simply do not believe this type of project is the future of Lake County.”
Lakeport resident Nancy Ruzicka said there is nothing happening in the community right now, and development is needed.
“I guess I'm saying I think this would be a good project and you should give it a go,” she said.
Norm Ihle, another Lakeport resident who has consistently voiced concerns with the project, said he was concerned that the project isn't taking advantage of Clear Lake, now that the Marina at Lyons Creek component of the project is off the table. That land is in foreclosure.
Ihle also raised issues with serpentine soils in the area, saying he doubted second homebuyers would flock to a development where there were serious concerns for asbestos contamination.
Finley resident Phil Murphy said the board had several choices, including having the courage to not accept the project and explain why the new general plan shouldn't be disregarded.
The most difficult choice, he said, would be to accept the plan as it is and have to explain to the community how far out of compliance the plan is with planning rules.
Melissa Fulton, who lives next door to the proposed project area, said she supports it. Fulton, who also is chief executive officer of the Lake County Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber voted a few years ago to support it and a week ago they decided to continue their support.
Fulton said the county has been in economic distress for a long time, and that it was time to take a different approach.
Clearlake Oaks resident Chuck Lamb called Cristallago a “travesty.” He pointed to the drop in golf's popularity, and said he had researched a number of golf courses, many of them in forfeiture and all of them Jack Nicklaus signature courses.
Lamb pointed out that Boeger owes $1.4 million in back taxes on the marina property – which county records show already was in tax arrears when he purchased it several years ago – and asked why the board would approve a project with zoning changes and a general plan amendment for someone who doesn't pay his back taxes.
In addition, he accused Boeger of stripping the water rights out of the marina property and giving them to another organization before letting the land go into foreclosure. “This is the type of individual we're dealing with.”
Victoria Brandon, representing the Sierra Club Lake Group, said the No. 1 question before the board was whether the project was consistent with the general plan, which she asserted it wasn't.
“We can't count on this to pull us out of the current economic slump,” she said, adding that it was very possible the project could turn into another paper subdivision.
“The whole thing seems to be very old-fashioned,” Brandon said, adding that golf course developments were popular in the 1970s and 1980s. A county-commissioned marketing plan, which was completed in 2002 and pushed a golf course development, came at the tail end of that old way of thinking, said Brandon.
“This project, if approved, will shoot holes in our general plan,” she said.
At recent community blueprint meetings Brandon said area residents support community growth boundaries. She said development should fit “the genius of a place,” and cited the Tallman Hotel in Upper Lake as an example.
Farrington asked her why the Sierra Club had supported a golf course project at Langtry Estate and Vineyard a few years ago, which was outside of the community growth boundary. He called that project “a Trojan horse.” Brandon said Langtry had the water and the money to convert the irrigated pasture.
Supervisor Jim Comstock said the Langtry project had “a large residential component planned from the beginning,” and that the company wants to do its own resort.
Comstock said to think they were going to build a golf course without the residential component was “ludicrous.”
“Excuse me, but then we were lied to as a board,” said Rushing, recalling that winery officials had stated that the golf course was merely to draw wine buyers. The board ultimately supported the project.
County Counsel Anita Grant warned that they were getting off topic. Farrington said he just wanted to understand the different rationale between supporting one project and not the other.
“Supervisor Comstock said we were duped,” said Rushing. Comstock replied that he wasn't saying that.
“Excuse me, seriously,” said Grant, putting them back on topic.
David Nelson, one of Boeger's attorneys, said the project's main inconsistency was its location outside of the community growth boundaries. However, based on the general plan, Nelson said the project can stretch outside of those boundaries if it's part of a resort or a planned development.
He said no project can satisfy every part of the general plan, but the development team believed the board could safely find for the project. “We think that the facts are there,” Nelson said.
Board members explain positions
At around 6 p.m public comment was closed and it was the board's turn to weigh in.
Noting he's lost sleep over the project, Supervisor Jeff Smith said the county needs mixed use projects, because resorts alone can't survive year-round. He wanted to make sure, however, that the project's water and sewer issues were worked out.
Comstock said Hidden Valley Lake has been a positive project for Lake County, with its golf course drawing visitors from out of county.
He agreed with Smith that Cristallago would be positive. “This is the dream, this is what we want.”
Rushing said she found herself “wanting to believe,” especially at a time when the county is desperate for jobs and tempted to take any promise.
She said the project has certain assumptions for the future, including the same growth rates as before.
However, she noted, “We were told something pretty significant today” about the resort not being high-end but being primary for families with a focus on affordability.
Regarding comparison made to Hidden Valley Lake, Rushing said that community has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the county.
In the future, she said, “resources are going to be limited,” and homes may cost more. She suggested in the future authenticity will matter, and she also pointed to unique properties like the Tallman Hotel.
In any version of the future, Rushing said sprawl isn't an option, nor is “creating a new city outside of an existing city center.”
She concluded, “I can't support the project as it exists.”
Farrington asked County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox for his input.
Cox said when the board adopted the marketing plan in 2002, it gave staff marching orders to attract a project like Cristallago. He said the development's location is entirely a land use issue, up to the planning commission and the supervisors.
“Until the board changes that plan, that's what we're instructed to implement,” said Cox.
He added, “And I don't support a Lowe's there or anywhere else in Lake County.”
That was a reference to comments made last Thursday by Clearlake City Council members, who took a guest commentary Cox wrote for the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and quoted it out of context, giving the impression that Cox supported the city's Lowe's project.
Farrington said he's met with people on both sides of the project, and he's concerned about being consistent.
He said at first Boeger and his partner, Mark Mitchell, wanted just to build homes at the site, but Farrington suggested they bring it the golf course component – a golf course had been approved on the site for a previous project – and add an equestrian center and wine tasting component.
Still, he said he struggled with the fact that the subdivision had a higher residential component, which is inconsistent with the general plan. He said he didn't believe there should be a misunderstanding on that point, and that he had been “crystal clear” about the need to adjust Cristallago's densities.
Farrington said the project could easily find its way onto a ballot measure if enough people don't agree with the board's decision. He noted during the meeting that constituents have communicated that they're ready to take such an action.
Instead he offered a compromise. “My desire is to shape this project. My desire is to have the community shape this project.”
If the developers were willing to work with him, he suggested that they could possibly shave off $10 million to $12 million in costs if a full water plant upgrade wasn't needed. To reach that goal, Farrington suggested they reduce the number of homes from 650 down to between 135 and 300.
He said that the county's north Lakeport area plan is badly flawed and needs to be scrapped, and if the developers wanted to push for greater densities they should take part in the process for that new area plan.
Addressing the various issues brought up during the discussion, Supervisor Rob Brown said asbestos has always been a problem, and that the general plan is a document that gets amended often.
“We have to do things that will allow for some level of development,” he said.
The father of five said his worst fear is that his children will have to leave the county because there is no opportunity here.
Adding that he thinks people are afraid unnecessarily, Brown said, “I think it's a good project and I think it will be good for Lake County.”
Boeger said he had not come away from previous discussions with Farrington with an understanding that there had to be a “one to one” ratio of residential and resort in the development.
He said he's been told by many other developers that his densities are too low.
In order to support the resort's amenities, Boeger said that if they only had 300 homes they would have to sell them for about $900,000 each.
He said Tuesday was the 1,629th day he's worked on the project. “We're not in a position to wait around another year for the north Lakeport plan process,” he said. “If that's where we're going then that's it.”
“I wanted to support this, I really did,” Farrington said. “Consistency and keeping my word is important.”
Smith, who said he and Farrington have talked about the project, said he was “a little bit shocked” at Farrington's decision, and suggested they take a few weeks in order to give him more time to consider the numbers.
Farrington thanked Smith for his consideration. He said he chose not to meet with the developers for about a year because he wanted to be insulated from influence, and that was his approach, whether fellow board members liked it or not.
“None of you guys need to know what I'm doing,” he said.
Brown said he didn't understand why Farrington was so defensive. Farrington replied that they were giving him no choice. Brown said no one was saying that.
Farrington said he knew the project “inside and out,” and felt there was a lot of fuzzy math.
Brown offered the resolutions to amend the general plan amendment, rezone and general plan of development. All of the motions passed 3-2, with Farrington and Rushing voting no.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
