MIDDLETOWN, Calif. – After about three hours of discussion that primarily addressed a controversy over including a piece of agricultural land within Middletown's new community boundary, the Board of Supervisors voted to accept the Middletown Area Plan update.
In doing so, they threw out findings made on the plan by the Lake County Planning Commission, which approved the plan update and certified its environmental impact report on June 10.
The commission voted 3-2, with Cliff Swetnam and Clelia Baur voting no because they could not see a justification for adding the 105-acre property owned by Rudy and Faith Smith – located west of Dry Creek between Highway 175 and the Dry Creek Cutoff – to the community growth boundary.
The Smith property has been a point of contention in the plan. At a special meeting the Board of Supervisors held on Aug. 3 in Middletown, much of the community comment centered on the land.
At that time and again on Tuesday, Community Development Director Rick Coel voiced concern that adding the land to the boundary now will conflict with a general plan policy requiring 85 percent of the area's infill property to be used or unavailable before a boundary expansion can be justified.
The parcel also is listed by the state and on soil maps as prime agricultural soil, which county policy seeks to avoid developing, Coel said. But Faith Smith contended during the meeting that recent soil tests show the soil is not prime due to high magnesium levels.
Coel agreed that the Smith land was the next logical progression for the community boundary expansion, saying it would keep the community more centralized. Rather than add it now, he and Senior Planner Kevin Ingram worked out policy language for the board to consider that said the land would be considered first before other properties.
If the land was included now, it could immediately be developed at a density of one home per acre, and Coel said it would be hard to stop such a project if a developer came forward.
At the Aug. 3 meeting, District 1 Supervisor Jim Comstock – who had been involved in the six-year process to develop the plan, including sitting on its advisory committee – suggested that finishing the plan update after the general plan had led to conflicts.
On Tuesday Supervisor Jeff Smith asked Coel how the new general plan impacted Middletown's plan. Coel said the area plan must be consistent with the general plan, with has clearer policies to discourage conversion of agricultural land and sprawl based on a 3-percent growth rate.
The 1989 general plan established community boundaries for Middletown which the 2008 general plan tightened, with more emphasis on agricultural protection, Coel said.
Comstock, noting he agrees with eliminating sprawl, called the addition to the boundary of the 56-acre Vintage Faire property at 20740 and 20830 Highway 29 sprawl. Coel had explained during the meeting that the Vintage Faire land is zoned for 19 residences rather than the 140 that once had been proposed for the site.
Comstock said including the Smith property would eliminate sprawl and make for a more contiguous community.
Coel told the board, “We're really concerned about this ag parcel,” in reference to the Smith land, noting it was still in operation as a vineyard.
“It's been the most challenging thing I've been involved in in my career,” he said.
He said he respected the people who had spent so much time in the plan process. “I think what we have here is a really good area plan.”
But, he added, “At the end of the day we have to hang our hat on those general plan policies. I'm not going to break those,” explaining he wouldn't be doing his job if he did.
Board Chair Anthony Farrington, who said he met with the Smiths, said previous boards were staunch about maintaining agricultural lands, and that spirit went into the effort to protect 40-acre agricultural minimums.
Faith Smith asked the board to include her property – 52 acres of which is in grapes – in the boundary.
“In our lifetime we will continue to farm the place as we have no intention of developing the property,” she said.
Smith said she attended the area plan update committee over the six years, and said the group voted twice to add her land to the boundary.
She said other committee members had agendas, and alleged David Rosenthal wanted a 20-are parcel converted from agriculture to rural residential. Smith said she wasn't asking for a zoning alteration, only a boundary change.
Coel noted that the planning commission had offered its own findings to approve the plan, with those findings also included in the EIR, a fact which surprised Supervisor Denise Rushing.
“What is the integrity of an EIR prepared by staff when it's changed like that?” she asked.
Coel said the EIR was nevertheless certified by the commission.
Lake County Farm Bureau Executive Director Chuck March reiterated to the board concerns he'd voiced previously in the process about the Smith property addition to the boundary.
“The expansion of urban growth boundaries are a very strong concern of Lake County Farm Bureau,” he said, requesting that the findings to approve the plan update be based on fact and not “made up by three commissioners.”
Noting, “We get hung up on this now or never thing,” Supervisor Rob Brown wanted to know the difference in cost and process if the Smith property went into the boundary now versus later.
Coel said the process to develop the land would be much the same – there would be the same number of public hearings, the need for a rezone and general plan amendment and the same analysis of remaining parcels. “We would process that like we would any other general plan amendment.”
The ultimate cost difference in planning fees would be $1,667 if it wasn't included in the boundary, he said.
By not adding the land prematurely, “it continues to be ag,” he said. If it goes into the boundary now, the county doesn't have as much control over it, and it could be the next parcel subdivided.
Monica Rosenthal told the board that following a hiatus of about a year and a half, the area plan update committee came back with a plan regarding rezoning her property and including it in the growth boundary. She said she and her husband didn't ask for it, and she didn't recall him advocating for it.
Board scrutinizes commission findings
Brown said the board had to have findings to include the Smith property.
“They're not there,” he said. “They're just not there.”
Accommodating land owners, he added, doesn't drive policy.
Based on the general plan, Brown said he didn't see how the parcel could be added to the growth boundary. Nor did he see justification for the proposed Rosenthal rezone.
The board worked through four motions.
In the first, which Rushing offered, they replaced the planning commission's findings of fact about the Smith property, including not being prime ag land, with the staff recommendations, and also removed the commission's findings from the EIR. The vote was 4-1, with Comstock voting no.
Rushing also offered the second motion, which passed 4-1 – Comstock again dissenting – to recertify the EIR with the modifications.
Comstock offered the third motion, a resolution to adopt an amendment to the general plan that excluded the Smith property and returned the Rosenthal acreage to rural residential zoning. The motion passed 5-0.
The final ordinance, which Comstock also offered, adopted a sectional district zoning map which rezoned lands within the plan area. That also was a 5-0 vote.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews and on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf.
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
