At the behest of its developers, the Plum Flat subdivision went before the board Tuesday morning, with the board stopping short of an affirmative vote because staff needs to prepare a rezone ordinance beforehand. That document should be ready early next month, which will allow the vote to proceed.
Plum Flat LLC – composed of partners including engineer Scott Bennett, architect Vincent Price and heretofore silent partner and San Martin businessman Cliff Fenske – want to build the 30-lot development on approximately 105 acres at 10929 Point Lakeview Road, Kelseyville, near the Clear Lake Riviera.
The Lake County Planning Commission took two votes at its Aug. 26 to turn down the proposed subdivision's rezone and general plan of development. Both votes were 4-1 – with District 5 Commissioner Gil Schoux the dissenting vote each time.
Commissioners in the majority voiced concerns about water, sewer and road access, along with questioning whether the project – originally proposed to be 104 lots – was a case of piecemealing.
County Principal Planner Emily Minton told the board Tuesday that a general plan of development doesn't allow building on the site – that would require a tentative subdivision map, another step in the process.
Community Development Director Rick Coel said his department's main concern with the project is the lack of design work to determine whether there will be individual wells or a community water system. If it doesn't offer the latter, lots would have to be 40,000 square feet in size to accommodate wells.
“It's not that this site shouldn't be developed,” said Coel, but rather than more planning was needed.
Coel said they also didn't know about the project's maximum buildout, and raised the piecemealing issue.
Bennett told the board, “This is not permission to start building. This is just step one.”
The property has some old shallow wells, and while he could spend $50,000 on well drilling, Bennett didn't want to do that unless he knows he has a project going forward.
Bennett said he's also talked to California Water Service Co., which has the Lucerne water system, and the company said it would be happy to help with the development's water system design.
Bennett said the lots would be more than two acres in size, which is more than adequate for sewers and wells.
Supervisor Rob Brown asked for the exact lot sizes. Bennett said that would be determined during further investigation. He said they already have done “quite a few” studies to look at hydrology and traffic analysis, the latter done for the original proposal of 104 lots.
Bennett said they also were willing to provide a secondary, emergency-only access road.
He emphasized, “We're only asking for 30 lots, period,” but added that if they were to sell the project down the road, they can't predict if a new developer would attempt to increase the lot number.
Board Chair Anthony Farrington said four issues stood out – water, sewer, the emergency road and the agricultural buffer. He asked if it would kill the project to require a community water and sewer system.
Bennett said he would have to talk to his partners, but felt they could live with individual aerobic wastewater treatment systems. They didn't want a 150-foot agricultural buffer on the southern and eastern property lines. Future agricultural use in the area also would need to provide an additional 150-foot buffer in those areas, staff said.
Coel started to propose a compromise on the agricultural buffer, but Supervisor Denise Rushing cut him off, saying that some of the board members – such as herself – hadn't yet spoken.
“I am really struggling with this,” she said.
Supervisor Jeff Smith said the buffers could also overlap with building envelopes. “It's not an unusable piece of property.”
Rushing said she was troubled by the board's propensity to get into negotiations before hearing from all of the board members and the public.
She said the property would provide a design challenge for anyone. Pointing to the county's planned development review process and what staff said was required to meet it, Rushing said, “I don't think we should design it from the board level” or negotiate there, either.
Rushing added that she felt the planning commission had asked “some really good questions” about the project.
Farrington said he didn't want his questions construed as negotiating a deal, but added, “If there are going to be negotiations, this is the room to do it in.”
Debi Freeland, a Clear Lake Riviera resident who lives on Bel Air East, told the board she was concerned about granting vehicles into Plum Flat access on roads in her area. The nearby Bel Air West is proposed as the development's fire access road.
“I think our roads are overtaxed,” she said.
Brown asked Coel about the process if developers wanted more lots in the future. Coel said if current standards still applied, the applicant would have to seek an amendment to the general plan of development and apply for a new use permit, both of which would require public hearings and a review process.
Coel said his staff is going by the current proposal of 30 lots, but they don't have enough details in the plan as it is to understand the lots' configuration.
Linda Tellardin, president of the Clear Lake Riviera Community Association, told the board that people were adamantly opposed to allowing access to Plum Flat on the Clear Lake Riviera's roads.
Lower Lake resident Victoria Brandon said the concerns about the proposed project change considerably when reducing it from 104 to 30 lots, but she said she would be happier if the information about water supply was more thoroughly spelled out.
Rushing said someone needed to come up with an estimate of when the area's housing needs can't be provided through infill in the Rivieras.
Fenske told the board that Plum Flat LLC intended to keep the lot number at 30, but like Bennett said they can't be sure of what will happen in the future. For now, they wanted to know what they could do with the property.
“Let me know what I can do with this and I'll do it,” he said.
Price said there are still a lot of “what ifs” that will be addressed in the future in the specific plan of development. He said he and his partners were now only applying for the general plan of development.
“We're not asking for 104 lots, we're asking for 30,” he said.
Brown said now was the time for people to get their concerns addressed. As the discussion progressed, Brown said he was willing to let the developers move forward if they addressed those concerns.
With the board's consensus moving largely toward granting the developers the rezone and general plan of development, Coel asked for time to come back with a rezone ordinance before the vote was taken.
The board agreed to bring the matter back for a vote at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, Nov. 9.
Also at Tuesday's meeting, the board approved an appeal by Teresa Thurman, owner of U Wanna Camp on Scotts Creek Road in Lakeport.
The Community Development Department issued a notice of violation in September 2009 to Thurman because of longterm occupancy of RV spaces at the campground, which has an expired use permit. The facility also was being used as a permanent living facility, the county said.
The matter, which had gone before the board several times and had each time been continued, was settled with stipulations, including the board sending a letter to the state Housing and Community Development Department, which issues permits on such facilities. The board wants to raise issues with how the state is handling facilities such as Thurman's.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
