At its Nov. 9 meeting the board voted in favor of allowing the Plum Flat subdivision to move forward.
Plum Flat LLC proposes to build the 30-lot development on 105 acres at 10929 Point Lakeview Road, Kelseyville, near the Clear Lake Riviera.
The decision had been held over from the Oct. 26 meeting after Community Development Director Rick Coel asked for additional time to prepare a rezone ordinance, as Lake County News has reported.
Coel and Principal Planner Emily Minton brought to the board draft conditions for the subdivision, which included 75 foot buffers – modified from 150 feet – on the southern and eastern property lines.
County staff also was seeking a new community water system to support the subdivision, but they informed the board that the partnership wanted to be able to drill individual wells.
During the discussion, the size of required buffers for the property was a source of questions as well as disagreements amongst board members.
Supervisor Jeff Smith said he didn't want to see adjacent property owners have to implement a 225-foot buffer in order to make up for the reduced buffer width on the project. “We could be taking away from the property owner next door,” he said.
Board Chair Anthony Farrington queried staff about the 300 feet size that kept coming up related to the buffers. Minton said it was that distance that the agriculture commissioner suggested when separating agricultural and other uses. The land is adjacent to agricultural property.
Supervisor Rob Brown said there is also a recommended 100-foot fire break around all residences. “In this case there is not 100 feet to play with.”
Coel acknowledged, “This one is a bit of a challenge,” explaining that the project is on the edge of the growth boundary and is located in the transition between urban and rural lands. It also doesn't yet have a specific plan of development, so the county doesn't know the lot configuration or sizes.
Supervisor Denise Rushing was concerned about the buffers and the project's location in the urban-wildland interface. “This is an accident waiting to happen if we don't get it right.”
Coel suggested that the minimum 75-foot buffer be a draft condition for the general plan of development, which could be addressed again when the project is farther along in the process.
Brown said a wildland fire is of more concern to him that spray drift from agriculture. “That doesn't destroy a community like a fire will,” he said.
Rushing asked why they were pushing a 75-foot buffer if 300 feet was recommended. Minton said staff originally had suggested 300 feet, but at the last meeting they believed the board had reduced the distance.
“I don't think we did that,” said Rushing, adding she was uncomfortable with 75 feet.
“It's an arbitrary number,” said Brown.
“Then why set it?” asked Rushing.
Brown said the county has setbacks all over the place.
He went on to ask why they were getting hung up on 300 feet. Rushing said because it was an agricultural area. Brown said they had only used the 300-foot buffer on one project.
Rushing said she didn't know why they had to set the buffer length at that meeting.
Farrington pointed out that the general plan's agriculture element doesn't identify any one length for buffers.
Coel, who didn't have the general plan with him, said the requirement is based on each project. He proposed the board not define the buffer size then, but instead require that an appropriate and adequate buffer shall be based on current policies in effect at the time of the project's final approval. Coel said he wanted more information on what the project will look like.
Scott Bennett, a member of Plum Flat LLC, said they're happy to postpone the buffer decision, but he felt a precedent had been set in the area with a smaller, 75-foot buffer. Farrington said he wanted to wait on additional project specifics.
Bennett suggested it might be wise to go with the 75 foot buffers since the county has used that distance in other places. Farrington said it's a case-by-case decision.
County Counsel Anita Grant read requirements that included a 100-foot buffer for commercial agriculture.
Kelseyville resident Anna Ravenwoode said the planning commission hadn't approved of the project due to fire safety. She therefore suggested a full environmental impact report on the project to explore all of its concerns.
Minton noted that the planning commission voted down the project's mitigated negative declaration 4-1, and had sought more information about the overall proposal.
Rushing asked if the plan before the board was different than the one the commission considered. Coel said it was the same plan.
Coel said there is a somewhat confusing plan of development process in county code. In a perfect world, he said officials would look at a tentative map, use permit and master plan of development for a project all at once, but that's not how it's currently done.
The board went on to approve the project's mitigated negative declaration and rezone in 5-0 votes, with a 4-1 vote – with Rushing dissenting – on the general plan of development.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
