Dear Lake County Supervisors:

I write in opposition to the proposed Eachus View Estates subdivision and rezoning. There is no proven need for the subdivision of the existing agricultural property into four small suburban residential parcels with one remaining agricultural parcel.

I do not object to Mark Mitchell’s right to use his property consistent with the law. However, the property that Mr. Mitchell purchased in late 2005 is a single 90-acre property zoned for agricultural use. He has every right to use that property consistent with the existing zoning and the law. However, he now wishes to change that property into something new and fundamentally different: five pieces of property, four suburban residential parcels and one remaining agricultural piece. Before the county allows that change in the nature of Mr. Mitchell’s property it must determine whether it is in the public interest to do so. Obviously, Mr. Mitchell wants to make the change so that he can sell off the parcels and make money. However, his desire to profit from his 2005 purchase does not in any way automatically show any community need to subdivide the land and change the applicable zoning. The board must determine whether adding four suburban residential lots to the existing inventory of such lots in the County advances the public interest; it cannot consider only the very private economic interest of Mr. Mitchell.

The first question the board must ask is whether there is a shortage of existing undeveloped suburban residential lots, or the “product” to use Mr. Mitchell’s terminology, in the North Lakeport area. If there is an adequate stock of one to five acre lots, which appears to be the case and which Staff can readily confirm, then the subdivision does nothing positive for the county and its residents. All the effects are negative for everyone but Mr. Mitchell.

If, and only if, there is a significant shortage of existing home sites available for development, then the board can debate whether adding such types of properties outside the North Lakeport Community Growth Boundary is good public policy and makes good sense for the county as a whole.

Of course, as clearly developed before the Planning Commission and in the Jan. 15 hearing, it makes no sense whatsoever to subdivide agricultural lands outside the Community Growth Boundary. It makes no sense to the community to tax the aquifer and add new septic systems rather than tie to existing water and sewage treatment systems. It makes no sense to the community to take existing agricultural land and turn it permanently into suburban lots. It makes no sense to the community to jerrymander lots with inadequate buffers to future agricultural uses in the area. Even if there is an existing shortage of suburban residential lots, it still does not call for expanding suburban growth into agricultural areas. If there is such a shortage, I submit that we can count on the market to bring lots within the growth boundaries to the Planning Commission in the future.

There was considerable discussion on the Jan. 15 hearing on whether your decision in this matter would form some kind of precedent. Of course it would. As the legislative body in Lake County, all actions of the Board of Supervisors are precedent. As the owner of an agricultural property in Scotts Valley, I am very concerned about any actions that ignore the fundamental planning concept of restricting suburban growth to established growth boundaries. I am very concerned that allowing this development would encourage developers to look at Scotts Valley to put in two-acre ranchettes or three-acre “Scotts Creek View Estates.”

Lake County can and should grow. However, it must grow in a long-term cohesive and sustainable manner, not as poorly planned, one-off and piecemeal sprawl. Don’t set a precedent of allowing suburban sprawl. Take the long-term view. Don’t approve this expansion of suburban growth into agricultural lands and don’t put the private profit drive of a single individual over the good of the County as a whole.

Kevin Goodwin lives in Lakeport.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}