Planning Commission forwards Kelseyville-area zoning correction to supervisors after public concern
February 13, 2026 | Lake County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Lake County Planning Commission on Feb. 12 voted to forward a proposed zoning map amendment affecting three parcels in the Kelseyville area to the Board of Supervisors with no recommendation after public comment raised concerns about agricultural protections and transparency.
Mary Clabaughn, senior planner in the Community Development Department, told the commission the map amendment was initiated to align zoning with the 2008 General Plan. "The purpose of the proposed zoning map amendment is to correct the zoning district of these parcels to reflect PDC . . . consistent with the 2008 general plan's land use industrial designation," Clabaughn said. She said no new development is proposed as part of the map amendment and that any future project would require separate CEQA review.
The change stems from a step the county missed when updating its zoning map after the 2008 general plan update, staff said. County staff and counsel explained the commission does not have authority to undo the 2008 general plan decisions and that the item before the commission is a map-correction to make the zoning map consistent with the adopted land-use maps.
Property owner Don Duker said he and his co-owners have held the land for decades and expected the rezone to have been implemented earlier, telling commissioners, "It was my understanding that it had been rezoned." Several residents and area stakeholders urged a continuance so the public could review documentation. "We value agricultural lands," Margot Kambara told the panel and asked the commission to "take a pause and take a look at the evidence." Donna Mackiewicz and others raised questions about tribal notification and asked staff to make prior rezoning documentation publicly available.
Staff recommended forwarding the amendment to the Board of Supervisors; after discussion about the commission's options, a motion to advance the item to the board with no recommendation carried on an oral vote. The board will make the final decision.
What happens next: The Board of Supervisors will consider the proposed map amendment; any subsequent project on the parcels would require project-level environmental review and public hearings. The Planning Commission record and staff materials will accompany the item to the board.
Mary Clabaughn, senior planner in the Community Development Department, told the commission the map amendment was initiated to align zoning with the 2008 General Plan. "The purpose of the proposed zoning map amendment is to correct the zoning district of these parcels to reflect PDC . . . consistent with the 2008 general plan's land use industrial designation," Clabaughn said. She said no new development is proposed as part of the map amendment and that any future project would require separate CEQA review.
The change stems from a step the county missed when updating its zoning map after the 2008 general plan update, staff said. County staff and counsel explained the commission does not have authority to undo the 2008 general plan decisions and that the item before the commission is a map-correction to make the zoning map consistent with the adopted land-use maps.
Property owner Don Duker said he and his co-owners have held the land for decades and expected the rezone to have been implemented earlier, telling commissioners, "It was my understanding that it had been rezoned." Several residents and area stakeholders urged a continuance so the public could review documentation. "We value agricultural lands," Margot Kambara told the panel and asked the commission to "take a pause and take a look at the evidence." Donna Mackiewicz and others raised questions about tribal notification and asked staff to make prior rezoning documentation publicly available.
Staff recommended forwarding the amendment to the Board of Supervisors; after discussion about the commission's options, a motion to advance the item to the board with no recommendation carried on an oral vote. The board will make the final decision.
What happens next: The Board of Supervisors will consider the proposed map amendment; any subsequent project on the parcels would require project-level environmental review and public hearings. The Planning Commission record and staff materials will accompany the item to the board.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
