The General Plan can be your legacy. It can be the North Star and Constitution for development in unincorporated LC for the next 20 years.
But community members and members of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), Local Area Plan Advisory Committees (LAPACs), and Municipal Area Councils (MACs) have informed you that the General Plan (GP) and Local Area Plans (LAPs) are off track.
Updating the GP and LAPs is a difficult job. No doubt.
The GP Advisory Committee can be a key resource to Community Development Dept. (CDD) and your Board. But the GPAC has been sidelined.
Two Positive Steps:
1. Reconsidering the project schedule is smart. It would be smarter to get or see documentation of the state’s deadlines to submit updated GP elements or chapters.
With respect, the deadline documentation should be in hand because there has been confusion about this project’s deadlines and requirements. Knowing the true deadline to submit updated GP Element (or chapter such as Health & Safety), allows for efficient use of County staff.
As for rescheduling work on the GP/LAPs, consider Betsy Cawn’s suggestion to prioritize updating the GP update, and update the LAPs later as a separate project. LAPs have no statutory deadlines.
The GP is a critical planning document. It deserves focus, attention and adequate resources. It should not be rushed because of budget shortfall. Contract management or quality control issues may provide funding options to finish the project.
Updating the GP is a job that must be done right. It is not likely that the job can be properly done in six months. Experienced program / project management calls for considering statutory and contractual deadlines and requirements, scheduling work in scope or rework as needed (the current situation) and replanning and rescheduling the project as needed.
2. Considering more community input, as CCD Director Turner suggests, is positive. But more meetings alone will not fix the GP and LAPs. GPAC identified fundamental organizational issues with the GP. In addition, the Planning Commission (PC) has found the current Agriculture Element draft unacceptable; the PC took the initiative to rewrite this element.
Broken cog in General Plan process.
A broken cog in the GP update project is integrating relevant public input into the final GP and LAPs drafts. This hasn’t been done completely, as LAPACs, MACs, members of GPAC and residents have declared. Important changes identified by the community to the drafts have not been applied to the final drafts. The exclusion has not been adequately explained.
The broken cog has its origins in the GP public comment process. CDD logged public comments at GPAC’s request. Each comment was considered and dispatched by CDD or its vendor with a terse response. In May GPAC requested a meeting in August to understand the why relevant public comments were excluded from the final drafts, but CDD did not schedule the meeting.
Will the revised project plan ensure that relevant public comments are reflected in the final drafts? This is a critical point and a community priority.
If more meetings and more public input are encouraged, will new comments be logged? How will input be evaluated? By whom? Without a change in the process, we will be in the same boat but with more unaddressed public comments.
On 24 August 2026, CDD Director Turner told a community group that public comments previously submitted will be checked with AI (artificial intelligence) to see whether any comments were missed. Director Turner questioned whether comments received after public comment period on the initial drafts would be included in the final drafts. She cited budget.
GP public comment process fails.
Your Board encourages public engagement, but the GP public comment process failed the Scotts Valley Advisory Council. The Council proactively reviewed the current Area Plan and wrote your Board on 30 April 2026 with recommendations for GP and LAP updates.
The Council’s recommendations covered flood prevention, wildfire prevention, groundwater and stormwater management, agricultural land preservation, agricultural economics and labor, and local food production and processing.
In response to the letter, CDD listed two comments in the GP Comments Inventory and dismissed both. One comment was dismissed for not having enough detail. That comment recommended using plain English and limiting jargon to help make plan contents understandable and relatable to more residents. It seems that a competent editor or surely a planning consultant could review the drafts for readability and heed the Council's recommendation.
At yesterday’s (24 Aug 2026) special Scotts Valley Advisory Committee meeting, the Council learned that GP/LAP public comment was and is expected to focus on a specific part of the GP or LAP. This expectation was not shared with the public prior to yesterday.
Now, the Council is expected to map its recommendations to specific parts of the GP and LAP. This expectation revealed after the fact is disheartening and discouraging. The Council, being good sports and citizens, authorized an ad hoc committee to complete this mapping.
Your Board’s leadership on the GP project is needed now.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Margaux Kambara
Lake County 2050
General Plan Advisory Committee, Representative
(speaking for myself)
Attached is the East Region Town Hall (ERTH) cover comment letter on the final draft General Plan and East Lake Area Plan which was submitted to the Planning Commission for their 8/13/26 hearing. The complete letter with attachments/issues can be seen at:
To: Lake County Planning Commission: Commissioner Zoller, Chair and Commissioners Rosenthal, Chavez, Brown and Field.
8/9/26 – Lake County General and Area Plan Updates
Thank you for considering our comments on the final draft General Plan and East Lake Area Plan.
The Eastern Regional Town Hall (ERTH) is a municipal advisory committee appointed by the Lake County Board of Supervisors. The focus of ERTH is to seek relevant information, perform outreach, participate with and make recommendations on issues and decisions affecting the residents of the East Region of District 3.
The ERTH region is part of the East Lake Area Plan, representing the communities of Clearlake Oaks, Spring Valley, Glenhaven, Double Eagle Ranch and the Southern border of the District 3 near Sulphur Bank Mine and North Dr areas, over to the Colusa/Yolo county borders. The East Lake Area Plan is unique in that it covers two of the five districts in Lake County; it also covers the unincorporated areas of District 2.
ERTH devoted the August 5th MAC meeting to discussion of the proposed plan. The council voted unanimously to reject the document as written. This was supported by a majority of the community members present. The concerns include:
ERTH Comments:
• The ERTH public comments letter submitted to CDD on 4/28/26 was not included in the updated plan. This was noted to CDD on 5/11/26 when we received the group notes. It was still not included in the final rewrite and noted to CDD again on 7/24/26. We have attached the comment letter.
Community Outreach:
• CDD agreed to supply a hard copy to the ERTH Council to be made available to the public at the Clearlake Oaks Senior Center for those that do not have internet access or computers, or travelling to the Clearlake Library is too difficult. This was in mid-July and we have still not received it.
• We are also concerned that the North Lake Area Plan - covering our D3 MAC alliance boundaries with CRTH and WRTH - was released after the July MAC meetings while the Planning Commission review is before the August WRTH meeting. This does not give the public time to comment with their Area Councils.
General Plan/Area Plan Format:
• We take issue with the new format in the General Plan. Major countywide elements - such as Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation/Recreation and Public Facilities - have been reallocated to the Local Area Plans when they should have their own overarching elements in the General Plan. Because these overarching elements have been relegated to the Area Plans, the goals, policies and action plans in all eight area plans are nearly identical.
• We are concerned about losing historical knowledge found in the current Shoreline Area Plan. We would like the inclusion of historical references, information and descriptive text carried over from the Shoreline Area Plan to the East Lake Plan. Updated baseline information and demographics - some of which can be found in the draft EIR - should be placed in the actual plans. The current draft is missing important features, includes erroneous information which was not updated per request, and does not adequately reflect our communities and desires.
• Numerous goals, policies and action plans located in the East Lake Plan - such as developing a Tree Preservation Ordinance, Land Use and Recreation/Conservation are not something appropriate to a local area plan and should be in the General Plan itself.
The draft plans were scheduled for review in the winter/spring of 2025 which would have given time for public review and comment. This did not happen. As the General Plan/Local Area plans are the constitution for Lake County and will set the direction for the next 25 to 30 years, this should not be taken lightly. We request the Planning Commission reject the documents as written. We would like the East Lake Plan to receive the modifications/additions requested during public outreach and LAPAC meetings. Until that time, ERTH would prefer to keep the current Shoreline Area Plan.
Attached you will find the ERTH Public Comment letter as well as our marked-up version of the East Lake Plan. Please note, the comments in BLUE are the areas that we requested clarification, addition or deletion. As it is a large file, we only included pages with BLUE comments.
Thank you for your time,
East Region Town Hall (ERTH)
I would like to offer a few comments for your consideration.
In light of the progress made to date I am concerned about the funds allocated to the consultant, PlaceWorks. After three years and $2.3 million spent, the collaboration between PlaceWorks and the Community Development Department (CDD) should have produced a thoroughly vetted document ready for approval by the Planning Commission and your Board. Instead, we have a draft document containing numerous errors, omissions, and aspirational provisions.
To date, three Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs) have rejected the drafts and expressed concern that many of their recommendations—including proposed changes—were either ignored, overlooked or discarded .
Has PlaceWorks run its course? I would like to suggest an alternative approach moving forward: Rather than appropriating additional funds for PlaceWorks, CDD could complete the documents by correcting the errors and omissions while collaborating closely with the MAC's and other agencies. The revised documents could then be offered for approval to the Planning Commission and your Board.
Chair Rasmussen and Supervisors,
The General Plan can be your legacy. It can be the North Star and Constitution for development in unincorporated LC for the next 20 years.
But community members and members of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), Local Area Plan Advisory Committees (LAPACs), and Municipal Area Councils (MACs) have informed you that the General Plan (GP) and Local Area Plans (LAPs) are off track.
Updating the GP and LAPs is a difficult job. No doubt.
The GP Advisory Committee can be a key resource to Community Development Dept. (CDD) and your Board. But the GPAC has been sidelined.
Two Positive Steps:
1. Reconsidering the project schedule is smart. It would be smarter to get or see documentation of the state’s deadlines to submit updated GP elements or chapters.
With respect, the deadline documentation should be in hand because there has been confusion about this project’s deadlines and requirements. Knowing the true deadline to submit updated GP Element (or chapter such as Health & Safety), allows for efficient use of County staff.
As for rescheduling work on the GP/LAPs, consider Betsy Cawn’s suggestion to prioritize updating the GP update, and update the LAPs later as a separate project. LAPs have no statutory deadlines.
The GP is a critical planning document. It deserves focus, attention and adequate resources. It should not be rushed because of budget shortfall. Contract management or quality control issues may provide funding options to finish the project.
Updating the GP is a job that must be done right. It is not likely that the job can be properly done in six months. Experienced program / project management calls for considering statutory and contractual deadlines and requirements, scheduling work in scope or rework as needed (the current situation) and replanning and rescheduling the project as needed.
2. Considering more community input, as CCD Director Turner suggests, is positive. But more meetings alone will not fix the GP and LAPs. GPAC identified fundamental organizational issues with the GP. In addition, the Planning Commission (PC) has found the current Agriculture Element draft unacceptable; the PC took the initiative to rewrite this element.
Broken cog in General Plan process.
A broken cog in the GP update project is integrating relevant public input into the final GP and LAPs drafts. This hasn’t been done completely, as LAPACs, MACs, members of GPAC and residents have declared. Important changes identified by the community to the drafts have not been applied to the final drafts. The exclusion has not been adequately explained.
The broken cog has its origins in the GP public comment process. CDD logged public comments at GPAC’s request. Each comment was considered and dispatched by CDD or its vendor with a terse response. In May GPAC requested a meeting in August to understand the why relevant public comments were excluded from the final drafts, but CDD did not schedule the meeting.
Will the revised project plan ensure that relevant public comments are reflected in the final drafts? This is a critical point and a community priority.
If more meetings and more public input are encouraged, will new comments be logged? How will input be evaluated? By whom? Without a change in the process, we will be in the same boat but with more unaddressed public comments.
On 24 August 2026, CDD Director Turner told a community group that public comments previously submitted will be checked with AI (artificial intelligence) to see whether any comments were missed. Director Turner questioned whether comments received after public comment period on the initial drafts would be included in the final drafts. She cited budget.
GP public comment process fails.
Your Board encourages public engagement, but the GP public comment process failed the Scotts Valley Advisory Council. The Council proactively reviewed the current Area Plan and wrote your Board on 30 April 2026 with recommendations for GP and LAP updates.
The Council’s recommendations covered flood prevention, wildfire prevention, groundwater and stormwater management, agricultural land preservation, agricultural economics and labor, and local food production and processing.
In response to the letter, CDD listed two comments in the GP Comments Inventory and dismissed both. One comment was dismissed for not having enough detail. That comment recommended using plain English and limiting jargon to help make plan contents understandable and relatable to more residents. It seems that a competent editor or surely a planning consultant could review the drafts for readability and heed the Council's recommendation.
At yesterday’s (24 Aug 2026) special Scotts Valley Advisory Committee meeting, the Council learned that GP/LAP public comment was and is expected to focus on a specific part of the GP or LAP. This expectation was not shared with the public prior to yesterday.
Now, the Council is expected to map its recommendations to specific parts of the GP and LAP. This expectation revealed after the fact is disheartening and discouraging. The Council, being good sports and citizens, authorized an ad hoc committee to complete this mapping.
Your Board’s leadership on the GP project is needed now.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Margaux Kambara
Lake County 2050
General Plan Advisory Committee, Representative
(speaking for myself)
Attached is the East Region Town Hall (ERTH) cover comment letter on the final draft General Plan and East Lake Area Plan which was submitted to the Planning Commission for their 8/13/26 hearing. The complete letter with attachments/issues can be seen at:
https://lakeerthca.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/final-draft-east-lake-plan-study-areas-markups-pc-opt.pdf
To: Lake County Planning Commission: Commissioner Zoller, Chair and Commissioners Rosenthal, Chavez, Brown and Field.
8/9/26 – Lake County General and Area Plan Updates
Thank you for considering our comments on the final draft General Plan and East Lake Area Plan.
The Eastern Regional Town Hall (ERTH) is a municipal advisory committee appointed by the Lake County Board of Supervisors. The focus of ERTH is to seek relevant information, perform outreach, participate with and make recommendations on issues and decisions affecting the residents of the East Region of District 3.
The ERTH region is part of the East Lake Area Plan, representing the communities of Clearlake Oaks, Spring Valley, Glenhaven, Double Eagle Ranch and the Southern border of the District 3 near Sulphur Bank Mine and North Dr areas, over to the Colusa/Yolo county borders. The East Lake Area Plan is unique in that it covers two of the five districts in Lake County; it also covers the unincorporated areas of District 2.
ERTH devoted the August 5th MAC meeting to discussion of the proposed plan. The council voted unanimously to reject the document as written. This was supported by a majority of the community members present. The concerns include:
ERTH Comments:
• The ERTH public comments letter submitted to CDD on 4/28/26 was not included in the updated plan. This was noted to CDD on 5/11/26 when we received the group notes. It was still not included in the final rewrite and noted to CDD again on 7/24/26. We have attached the comment letter.
Community Outreach:
• CDD agreed to supply a hard copy to the ERTH Council to be made available to the public at the Clearlake Oaks Senior Center for those that do not have internet access or computers, or travelling to the Clearlake Library is too difficult. This was in mid-July and we have still not received it.
• We are also concerned that the North Lake Area Plan - covering our D3 MAC alliance boundaries with CRTH and WRTH - was released after the July MAC meetings while the Planning Commission review is before the August WRTH meeting. This does not give the public time to comment with their Area Councils.
General Plan/Area Plan Format:
• We take issue with the new format in the General Plan. Major countywide elements - such as Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation/Recreation and Public Facilities - have been reallocated to the Local Area Plans when they should have their own overarching elements in the General Plan. Because these overarching elements have been relegated to the Area Plans, the goals, policies and action plans in all eight area plans are nearly identical.
• We are concerned about losing historical knowledge found in the current Shoreline Area Plan. We would like the inclusion of historical references, information and descriptive text carried over from the Shoreline Area Plan to the East Lake Plan. Updated baseline information and demographics - some of which can be found in the draft EIR - should be placed in the actual plans. The current draft is missing important features, includes erroneous information which was not updated per request, and does not adequately reflect our communities and desires.
• Numerous goals, policies and action plans located in the East Lake Plan - such as developing a Tree Preservation Ordinance, Land Use and Recreation/Conservation are not something appropriate to a local area plan and should be in the General Plan itself.
The draft plans were scheduled for review in the winter/spring of 2025 which would have given time for public review and comment. This did not happen. As the General Plan/Local Area plans are the constitution for Lake County and will set the direction for the next 25 to 30 years, this should not be taken lightly. We request the Planning Commission reject the documents as written. We would like the East Lake Plan to receive the modifications/additions requested during public outreach and LAPAC meetings. Until that time, ERTH would prefer to keep the current Shoreline Area Plan.
Attached you will find the ERTH Public Comment letter as well as our marked-up version of the East Lake Plan. Please note, the comments in BLUE are the areas that we requested clarification, addition or deletion. As it is a large file, we only included pages with BLUE comments.
Thank you for your time,
East Region Town Hall (ERTH)
Dear Supervisors:
I would like to offer a few comments for your consideration.
In light of the progress made to date I am concerned about the funds allocated to the consultant, PlaceWorks. After three years and $2.3 million spent, the collaboration between PlaceWorks and the Community Development Department (CDD) should have produced a thoroughly vetted document ready for approval by the Planning Commission and your Board. Instead, we have a draft document containing numerous errors, omissions, and aspirational provisions.
To date, three Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs) have rejected the drafts and expressed concern that many of their recommendations—including proposed changes—were either ignored, overlooked or discarded .
Has PlaceWorks run its course? I would like to suggest an alternative approach moving forward: Rather than appropriating additional funds for PlaceWorks, CDD could complete the documents by correcting the errors and omissions while collaborating closely with the MAC's and other agencies. The revised documents could then be offered for approval to the Planning Commission and your Board.
Sincerely,
Chuck Lamb
Clearlake Oaks