MIDDLETOWN, Calif. – County supervisors heard concerns focusing on conflicts between policies in the general plan and the draft Middletown Area Plan update in a hearing held earlier this month.
The Board of Supervisors will continue the public hearing at its meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 17. The item is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. in the supervisors chambers in the courthouse at 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport.
The initial meeting took place at a special evening session on Aug. 3 at the Calpine Visitor Center in Middletown. Board Chair Anthony Farrington and Supervisor Denise Rushing were absent for the discussion.
During the two-hour meeting on Aug. 3, Community Development Department staff gave an overview of the plan, which Supervisor Jim Comstock said has been the result of a six-year process.
But while that process has yielded a plan that community members appeared to agree was well-crafted and thorough, the meeting revealed staff's concerns about conflicts between the area plan and the general plan, the latter document adopted by the Board of Supervisors nearly two years ago.
The pivotal issue was the inclusion in the community growth boundary of a 105-acre parcel owned by Rudy and Faith Smith and located west of Dry Creek between Highway 175 and the Dry Creek Cutoff.
Community Development Director Rick Coel would explain during the meeting that the issue was difficult for everyone involved. “This issue has been haunting us for three or four years,” he said.
Senior Planner Kevin Ingram gave a PowerPoint presentation at the start of the meeting, explaining that the plan is meant to provide guidance for longterm growth over the next 20 years for the 150-square-mile area of the south county that includes Middletown, Hidden Valley Lake, Coyote Valley and Anderson Springs.
He said the general plan divides the county into eight planning area, Middletown being one. Area plans are meant to be complementary and consistent with the general plan.
County staff introduced the draft plan at a town hall meeting last December, and it was the focus of four public hearings earlier this year. During the last public hearing before the Lake County Planning Commission on June 10, the commission certified the document, Ingram said.
The plan update identifies concerns including wildfire, flooding, promotion of the agricultural industry, the need to increase the local commercial base for local employment, greater range of services and protection of natural resources, including the viewshed. Ingram said it's also meant to prevent urban sprawl, enhance communities and identify future development, and maintain the area's rural nature.
It adds to the community growth boundary the Vintage Faire property at the northeast corner of the intersection of Butts Canyon Road and Highway 29 and the Smith property. Ingram said the general plan assumes a 2-percent average annual growth rate in community growth boundaries over the life of plan.
That growth rate would equate to 600 new residents and 240 housing units in Middletown, and 2,500 new residents or 956 dwellings by 2030, Ingram said.
He said the vast majority of development in Coyote Valley in the future can be achieved through infill development in Hidden Valley Lake. If not, 300 acres of land between Putah Creek and Grange Road could be utilized. To guarantee the land isn't developed prematurely, it would be protected through suburban reserve and agricultural zoning.
That same “placeholder” concept for zoning was proposed by staff for the Smith property, which currently is being operated as a vineyard but is in close proximity to water and sewer services.
“The issue of whether or not to expand the community growth boundary in Middletown became an extremely controversial issue and is ultimately responsible for the 3 to 2 planning commission decision, with the dissenting votes disagreeing on the need to expand the Middletown Community Growth Boundary,” said Ingram.
The area plan advisory committee recommended expanding the growth boundary to include the Smith property and Vintage Faire based off of 2006 growth projections, said Ingram. The planning commission requested that staff update those projections, which the Lake County Farm Bureau questioned during an April hearing.
The paper density calculations are unrealistic, Ingram said, so staff refined them from five dwelling units per acre to three.
He said county staff found that without any community growth boundary expansion there was adequate land available to accommodate the 531 dwelling units expected to be built in Middletown in the coming 20 years.
That equates to a 5.1-percent growth rate without any expansion, versus a 6.5 percent expansion with Vintage Faire and the Smith property added in, Ingram said. As such, staff proposed not to expand the boundary.
Ingram said the Smith property is listed by the state as prime agricultural land, but recent soil samples done by the property owner show that the soils aren't prime. He said the matter would need to be addressed again.
Other important aspects of the plan include economic development, a comprehensive parking plan, traffic calming, pedestrian enhancements, downtown improvements including a downtown plaza, and design guidelines.
Another property owner whose land is situated between St. Helena Creek, Highway 29 and Middletown High School wanted to be able to develop their land commercially, which the committee supported on principle, said Ingram. The plan supports a community commercial designation for 20 acres of the property.
The Coyote Valley special area study promoted establishment of a town center along Hartmann Road between Highway 29 and Coyote Valley, while the Guenoc/Langtry special study area included expanding agricultural opportunities, a golf course and other recreation; allowed residential development consistent with current use; protected existing natural resources; and maintained the rural atmosphere.
Smith property a main topic of comment
Much of the community comment centered on the issues around the Smith property.
Victoria Brandon of Lower Lake called the area plan update a “really excellent plan,” but said she didn't think the community growth boundary expansion was tenable.
The likelihood that Middletown will expand at a rate that actually requires an extra 105 acres “is just about zero,” said Brandon, but even if it did there are provisions to deal with it in the general plan's policies.
“To make this change at the present time is an assault on the ag protections throughout the general plan,” she said, adding that such a decision should be a last resort, not a first one.
“To do it now in advance of the need is, I think, very unwise,” she said, pointing out that the planning commission's vote showed that it didn't receive overwhelming assent.
Pat Rosenthal, who said he worked on the first area plan, said the boundary around Middletown is a hypothetical line. If the property is within the boundary, Rosenthal suggested it was a win-win that offers flexibility but doesn't necessarily mean the land will be developed anytime soon.
“Having the flexibility is extremely important,” he said.
Greta Zeit, an advisory committee member for six years, offered a history of how the additions to the growth boundary were considered.
In the committee's early days, it received information that turned out to be inaccurate. That included Vintage Faire being a forgone conclusion, shes aid.
Also incorrect was that, initially, growth was estimated at 6 percent for Middletown, said Zeit.
“So it was on the basis of this inaccurate information that the committee made its early decisions,” she said.
While she agreed that the Smith property is the next logical land to include, “the numbers simply don't support extension of our boundaries,” she said.
When the plan update started six years ago, Zeit said many people wanted to develop their land. She said she's often wondered what it would be like today if another 1,500 homes were on the market due to foreclosures.
Anderson Springs resident Meriel Medrano, who also served on the committee for six years, said the Smith land is the next logical parcel for development and believed it should be included.
“I don't believe it's going to be developed for a very long time, but I think the groundwork should be laid so that whatever happens in the future, it's ready to go,” she said.
Timothy Griffin, a grape grower who lives on the corner of Dry Creek and Highway 175, said the Smith property lends itself to future development, although he said he doubted Rudy Smith was going to give up farming tomorrow.
Fletcher Thornton, who said he wasn't a farmer but that “I know a little bit about growth,” explained that space for Middletown's growth is limited on the east side by St. Helena Creek.
The community members he's talked to are concerned about Middletown elongating if it grows north and south. That could lead to traffic problems and dying businesses, he suggested.
The fact that the Smith property currently is agricultural is “a very, very sensitive issue,” Thornton said.
He said people have used fear to dissuade the boundary expansion, but not one house in one new subdivision has been built in these last six years. “Don't let fear control you.”
Dave Rosenthal, vice chair of the planning committee, said the area certainly didn't have a 6 percent growth rate, and added that adding the Smith property to the boundary was not done correctly by the planning commission.
He accused Michael van der Boon, Comstock's District 1 planning commissioner, of disregarding staff reports on growth rates and agricultural land, and coming in with a predetermination of what land should be included.
“I suspect this would set a precedent for the rest of the county,” he said, asking what's to stop another farmer whose farming operation is not doing well, and is located next to a community growth boundary, from trying the same thing. But he did agree it was the next logical area for the town to grow.
Coel said the general plan has a number of policies that conflict with adding the Smith property to the boundary.
The general plan guides decision makers for when it's appropriate to expand a community growth boundary, with the policy designating that at least 85 percent of the community growth boundary needs to have been developed or be unavailable for new land to be added, Coel explained.
“What we have in this case is a number of remaining infill lots available,” he said.
Staff's proposals have been modeled on a 3-percent growth rate, and they've tried to set the growth boundaries large enough to allow for future expansion. But they want to be careful of consequences, such as not having enough area so that property values spike and no one can afford to buy homes.
He said they had looked at all the infill properties. “We've really low-balled the numbers. Honestly.”
Still, they came out just above a 4-percent sustainable growth rate for more than 20 years.
“For staff the concern has been the integrity of the general plan,” he said, adding it isn't a fight against the Smiths or necessarily a disagreement with the advisory committee.
“It's been a real challenge,” he said.
Coel said the general plan contains policies to allow for the property to be included in the growth boundary when things change in the future.
Monica Rosenthal, the former District 1 planning commissioner who was succeeded by van der Boon and David Rosenthal's wife, said putting the growth boundary at the Smith property would create issues for other agricultural property.
She said she has a parcel that abuts the current boundary, and a week after the planning commission approved the area plan update her neighbor told her he planned to put a granny unit 20 feet from her fence line, which is allowed by his zoning.
“But that's not really compatible with my right to farm,” she said.
Rosenthal also noted that once agricultural land is in a growth boundary, “it's more open to development.”
Middletown resident Sonya Christian said she felt respecting agricultural boundaries was important. She said she works as a fundraiser for nonprofits, and has done a lot of work in Napa County on environmental cleanup. Development, she said, as environmental impact.
Board continues discussion
After public comment ended and the matter returned to the board, Supervisor Rob Brown asked Coel, “Is this the only part of this plan that's in question? Everything else is fine?”
Coel said yes. “This is it.”
“That makes it a lot easier,” said Brown, who advocated giving Rushing and Farrington a chance to take part in the vote.
Comstock, who also sat on the advisory council even before his 2008 election to the board – which the Smiths supported – said the group had expressed concerns about their plan not being completed before the general plan. He said planning staff told them they could have the findings they wanted.
“And so exactly what my concern was six years ago is right now in front of us,” he said.
He said when Hidden Valley Lake first was developed 40 years ago, a fair portion of it was located on some of the best agricultural land the county had ever seen, including the Hartmann road, known as the “China garden,” which flooded annually.
“Frank Hartmann could grow anything there and did,” he said.
Comstock said he had spoken to Voris Brumfield, who had been supervisor 20 years ago, and she told him the community growth boundary was made large in order to accommodate growth. He said he thought it was restrictive and narrow-minded to leave the boundary the same today as it was in 1989.
When he was running for office in 2008, he said a person approached him about developing land outside the boundary, and told Comstock that he and his backers had money and attorneys and would starve the county out.
“I want our area boundary to be large enough to encompass any potential growth for the next 20-year period,” said Comstock, adding that he didn't want to see developers force the county into general plan amendments.
“I believe that the neighbors have a right to know what is going to be beside them for the next 20 years,” he said. Comstock noted he wasn't a fan of general plan amendments.
Supervisor Jeff Smith asked Coel about the sections in the general plan that caused the conflict to which Comstock referred.
Coel said the plan tries to prevent development from happening first on prime agricultural land, and that the community growth boundary policy guides planners on assuming a 3-percent growth rate, not 6 percent.
“That's what staff has been sticking to in this process,” Coel said.
That's tended to be the percentage for planning areas around the county, but Coel said Lakeport has been an exception, as it has a “ridiculous amount of paper density available.”
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
