Supervisors decided to hold off on making a decision on the Eachus View Estates Subdivision until Feb. 5 because Supervisor Anthony Farrington – in whose district it would be located – was absent from Tuesday's meeting due to a family health emergency.
Developer Mark Mitchell of Origin Construction is proposing the subdivision, located at 3453, 3565, 3585 and 3595 Hill Road in Lakeport.
Mitchell wants to subdivide a 90-acre parcel zoned for agricultural into four residential parcels ranging in size between 2.13 and 3 acres, each with building envelopes, and one agricultural parcel of 76.15 acres. The plan also calls for rezoning 10.75 acres from agriculture to suburban reserve.
The staff report presented to the board explained that the project plan has been modified. Mitchell originally had wanted the subdivision to include eight lots.
“There was considerable controversy throughout the hearing process,” the report stated.
At a June 14 meeting the Planning Commission told Mitchell they could not support that original configuration based on concerns over conversion of ag lands and prime soils, buffer zones, biological resources, noise, hydrology and groundwater usage and noise.
Mitchell was given time to modify the project, and when it went back to the Planning Commission on Sept. 27 it was approved 3-2.
However, Johnnie Lee, Brad Peters and Harry Whitlock – neighbors of the project – appealed the decision.
The prevailing issue during the board's Tuesday discussion centered on conversion of agricultural lands.
Community Development Director Rick Coel told the Board of Supervisors Tuesday that there are no clear guidelines in county policy that solve the question of when agricultural conversion should be allowed based on population levels.
He suggested that once 85 percent of land within a community boundary has been developed, it may be appropriate to extend boundaries to offer for additional development. The project, Coel added, is outside of the Lakeport Area Plan.
Testifying before the board, Mitchell said, “I had no idea that this little subdivision would cause such a stir.”
Mitchell is partnering with his college roommate Matt Boeger on the vast Cristallago project, which proposes 650 single family homes and 325 resort units on an 861-acre site off Highway 29, also north of Lakeport.
Opponents of his project, said Mitchell, “think that this project is going to set a precedent for Cristallago. that's what it comes down to.”
Mitchell, who at times sounded angry during his comments, called that idea “absurd.”
“The General Plan allows for this project to take place on this property,” he said.
Mitchell said he's not asking for anything more than anyone else has done. He said that numerous properties on Hill Road have been subdivided into parcels of three acres or less over the last 20 years. Only a few parcels on Hill Road, he added, have agricultural zoning.
“If you guys are going to hold this over or make this a part of Cristallago, I'm going to have a serious problem with that,” he told the board. “It's just not fair, plain and simple.”
Mitchell said both the Planning Commission and county staff agree with him on the project's appropriateness. “To single me out because I'm a partner in Cristallago is just wrong.”
Community members weigh in
Sierra Club Lake Group Chair Victoria Brandon agreed with Mitchell that it's unfair to single him out, but she disagreed that she's concerned with a precedent for Cristallago.
Rather, Brandon said she's focusing on a more critical precedent – the infringement on agricultural lands.
The community has developed “a really strong concern and will” to keep agriculture viable locally, said Brandon. Allowing suburban growth to eat into agricultural areas isn't a way to ensure that viability.
The property doesn't have sewer and water hookups, and is “quite sensitive biologically,” she said, adding that Eachus Lake, a large vernal pool, is a focus of concern for the Department of Fish and Game.
“The main consideration here is the effect on agriculture,” she said – not just for that parcel but for the whole county.
Johnnie Lee, one of the three neighbors who filed the appeal against the subdivision plan, said he speaks against all of Mitchell's projects, not based on a personal attack but because of his overall concerns about them.
“This really is a debate on how growth is going to go forward in Lake County, Lakeport, into the future,” he said.
The Planning Commission voted to support owners' rights taking precedence in such projects, said Lee. “I'm afraid I just disagree.”
There is a greater good to consider when looking at development, said Lee. To think Mitchell's project won't set a precedent for future growth is “naive,” he added.
Neighbor Tom Powers spoke in defense of Mitchell, saying he has no issue with the subdivision, and that it conforms with codes and the General Plan. The only agriculture in the area has been grazing, Powers added.
Brad Peters, another of the appellants, responded to Mitchell's drawing a connection to Cristallago. “This definitely has nothing to do with Cristallago for me,” said Peters. “This has to do with what I feel is right for the area.”
Peters has a seven-acre property, which came from a larger 20-acre parcel his family subdivided previously. On his land he has a business building racing engines, which he ships around the United States.
“I just don't think that that area is ready for that type of development,” he said.
Upper Lake resident Janet Cawn said she thinks considering development projects separately is a problem.
Protection of agricultural land is the highest priority of the General Plan and the Local Agency Formation Commission, Cawn said.
“I would say we've already set a precedent, but it's a poor one,” she said.
Clearlake Oaks resident Judy Barnes suggested that any agricultural land conversion needs to be looked at closely, for the simple reason that, once it's converted, it can't go back.
Taking another opportunity to speak during the public hearing, Mitchell said he's already done a dozen projects in Lake County, and said that Lee has only visited the projects next to his property.
He also criticized Peters, who has himself subdivided property. Peters' business, said Mitchell, “makes a lot of noise and he doesn't want complaints.”
Mitchell said the General Plan and zoning are tools based on time. There are plenty of properties zoned for agriculture that aren't used for agriculture, he said; there also are commercially zoned properties with residences.
The land in question, said Mitchell, has never had a prime agricultural use. “These properties don't and have never produced anything.”
Oak trees on the property won't be cut down, he said, because the county's new grading ordinance won't allow it. Neither is farming the land the best way to preserve its wetlands.
If the land isn't developed now, it will be in the future, said Mitchell.
Board holds over a decision
Supervisor Rob Brown asked Coel how the property could currently be divided. Coel responded that it could be divided into two – agricultural parcels can't be broken up into less than 40-acre parcels according to county code – with one home on each parcel plus one farm labor housing unit, for a total of four homes. The number of wells is unlimited.
Supervisor Denise Rushing said strict maintenance of urban growth boundaries is necessary to prevent sprawl and preserve a way of life. She pointed out that in Europe, large cities are in close proximity to rural lands; within a few minutes of leaving Paris you're in the French countryside.
“That didn't happen by accident,” she said. “That happened because they really did not want to grow beyond a certain limit.”
Lee suggested to the board that just because there are smaller parcels to the south of the project – as Mitchell had pointed out – that it doesn't automatically mean the parcels to the north should divide, too.
Brown had asked to wait for Farrington's return, although Farrington had told the board they could go ahead and vote without him.
However, Supervisor Jeff Smith suggested that they should wait, since he guessed the vote could come down to a tie. That will necessarily make Farrington the tiebreaker when it's continued.
The subdivision will go back to the board at 9:45 a.m. Tuesday, Feb. 5.
Coel told Lake County News that in addition to the five parcels proposed for Eachus View Estates, Mitchell has been involved in subdivision projects totaling about 78 parcels, although not all of those projects are actively being built.
Those projects are only in county jurisdiction, said Coel, who did not have information on possible Origin plans in the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake.
Cristallago, Coel added, is still being processed by Community Development Department staff and going through the environmental impact report.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
{mos_sb_discuss:2}
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
