On a 3-2 vote, with Supervisors Rob Brown and Jeff Smith in the minority, the board decided – at least for now – not to allow developer Mark Mitchell to move forward with his Eachus View Estates subdivision, which would have been located at located at 3453, 3565, 3585 and 3595 Hill Road in Lakeport.
The Planning Commission approved the project at its Sept. 27, 2007 meeting, a decision appealed to the board by Johnnie Lee, Brad Peters and Harry Whitlock, who own neighboring properties.
The board first heard the matter at its Jan. 15 meeting.
Mitchell's plan calls for subdividing a 90-acre parcel zoned for agriculture 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.
Both the Sierra Club Lake Group and the Lake County Farm Bureau Board of Directors had issued objections to the plan over insufficient agricultural buffers and conversion of agricultural land.
Supervisors Denise Rushing asked Community Development Director Rick Coel about Lakeport's urban growth boundary. There isn't one technically, said Coel, although the General Plan update will place it along Highway 29.
Mitchell argued to the board that rezoning a portion of the property from agriculture to suburban residential reserve would actually make it consistent with the General Plan.
He also argued for his project based on past precedent, noting that there are about 60 smaller parcels along Hill Road that have been split over the years.
Mitchell said he was only asking to be able to do with his property what the General Plan would allow. If that's not acceptable, Mitchell said the board needed to explain to all of the property owners in the area why their land was being down-zoned.
Coel told the board that the Lakeport Area Plan “doesn't have a very clear set of policies” when it comes to rezoning. Instead, he said planning staff base rezoning on other issues – such as mitigating negative impacts, and putting building envelopes or buffers around homes.
He said his department supported Mitchell's plan because the General Plan called for the densities he was proposing. Had Mitchell sought a General Plan Amendment to rezone agricultural land in areas where the General Plan specifically maintained agriculture, “we would have very serious concerns about it.”
Several people spoke in favor of Mitchell's project, including Tom Powers, who said it's consistent with planning in the area. “I would encourage you not to change direction at this point in time.”
Other neighbors in the Hill Road area expressed their concerns that if Mitchell's proposal was halted they, too, would be unable to split up their parcels further.
Johnnie Lee, one of the appellants, argued that the project was clearly outside the area's urban growth boundaries, in an area the county considers prime agricultural land. He said it was a “naive” idea to think that Eachus View Estates would not set future precedents.
Melissa Fulton, who owns about 19 acres in the area, spoke favorably of the plan, saying the supervisors should be consistent with the Planning Commission. She added that she believed it was Mitchell's right as the property owner to develop the land as he wanted.
At the Jan. 15 hearing Mitchell had stated his concerns that his project was being targeted for criticism because he is a partner in the proposal to build Cristallago, a massive subdivision that also would be located north of Lakeport.
Clearlake Oaks resident Chuck Lamb, addressing those comments at Tuesday's meeting, called Mitchell's assertion about prejudice because of Cristallago “unfounded,” stating that anyone attempting to build a subdivision on prime agricultural soils would face the same opposition.
Lamb said Mitchell “chose to gamble” that he could convince the board to rezone the property. He added that rezoning is a privilege, not a right.
Infill should be emphasized before allowing subdivisions on agricultural land, said Lamb. He urged the board not to “whittle away” at agricultural lands, but to keep Lake County's heritage strong.
Organic farmer Steve DeVoto, who also is a member of the Lake County Farm Bureau Board of Directors, said the board “overwhelmingly” supported the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision.
“Let's be clear about this – all of this land is prime ag land,” said DeVoto.
While Mitchell at once point argued that his project should be allowed based on past precedent, Sierra Club Lake Group Chair Victoria Brandon said it wouldn't be good public policy to let past, bad decisions affect today's.
Rather, Brandon emphasized the need to make plans based on what benefits the community, not just an applicant.
“The really important issue is not this project, it is the precedent it is setting countywide,” she said, adding that the subdivision would be “an advance shot across the bow of urban boundaries.”
Toward the end of the hearing – which stretched over a little more than two hours – Mitchell went to the podium for the third and final time to address a comment made by Supervisor Anthony Farrington about the fact that Mitchell hadn't come to speak to him about Eachus View Estates.
“I didn't think this project would be so controversial,” said Mitchell, adding that if he had believed that, he would have spoken to Farrinton two years ago.
Replied Farrington, “I would have been able to tell you this would have happened.”
As the board began to deliberate on the matter, Board Chair Ed Robey said that in light of inconsistent policies, a desire to manage growth in an orderly way, and achieve long-term public benefit, he was reluctant to approve Mitchell's plan at this point. “Right now I don't think it's the right time to do it.”
Rushing agreed with Robey's take, saying she didn't believe there is a pressing need for more buildable lots.
“This looks a lot like sprawl,” she said. “It's not needed today.”
Supervisor Jeff Smith said he was torn. He cited inadequate agricultural buffers, but added, “This particular project is not that far-fetched from everything else around it and what the General Plan on its face says.”
Supervisor Rob Brown also held that the project was consistent with the General Plan. “One more lot is not going to make that much of a difference.”
Farrington, in whose district the land is located, said the county shouldn't entirely shut the door on Mitchell's plan, but said for him the timing was crucial. The county's General Plan Agricultural Element Committee hasn't reported its work back to the board, and that could prove significant in cases like this one.
“This is a hard call and timing is the issue,” said Farrington.
He concluded he didn't support Mitchell's application at this time, and moved to grant the appeal of the Planning Commission decision, which the board approved 3-2.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
{mos_sb_discuss:3}
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
