City of Clearlake considers contracting with county for animal control services

CLEARLAKE, Calif. – After several years of offering its own animal control services, the city of Clearlake is negotiating a new agreement that would have Lake County Animal Care and Control provide the services once more.

At its Thursday night meeting, the Clearlake City Council gave City Manager Joan Phillipe approval to continue negotiations with the county.

Because of the city’s financial situation, in 2009 it ended its contract with Lake County Animal Care and Control, with the annual contract at that point totaling about $200,000.

Since then, animal control services have been offered by city staff supervised by the Clearlake Police Department. Phillipe’s report to the council said that the city and county have had an agreement in effect since 2009 for animal shelter services.

If the city continues to provide animal control, it will need a better facility, and that will cost money the city doesn’t have, Phillipe said.

Continuing to staff and fund the services going forward has been a topic of ongoing discussion for city staff, Phillipe reported. She said the funding request for animal control-related services for the coming year – including the addition of a permanent employee – was more than $160,000, which doesn’t cover shelter improvements.

City staff has considered a number of options, including expanding services to include local veterinarians, contracting with a local organization or kennel owners, or contracting with a neighboring county, according to Phillipe’s report.

She said the option offering the most promise was to return to a contract with Lake County Animal Care and Control, which in preliminary discussions has proposed taking over services for an annual cost of $145,000.

That proposal so far includes having Animal Care and Control provide services that would be available 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, and would include sheltering, office staff and stray animal medical expenses, but wouldn’t include picking up animals, according to Phillipe.

Fine-tuning still needs to take place to reach a draft contract, which would need to take into account licensing fees, handling of vicious animals and large animals, and a contract term, she reported.

During the Thursday, discussion, Police Chief Craig Clausen said animal control staff does a good job, but it’s nevertheless challenging.

“It’s strictly financial,” he said.

Clausen said he has to backfill animal control staff shortages with unpaid volunteers, adding that police staff is not trained to deal with animals.

Phillipe told the council that she and Clausen have been working on reaching a proposed contract with the county.

Council member Joyce Overton said that when the council canceled the contract with Animal Care and Control in 2009, the intent had always been to renegotiate the costs, and she supported moving forward with talks with the county.

Mayor Jeri Spittler agreed, noting that it was obvious that staff had worked hard on the conceptual proposal.

The council agreed with Phillipe’s concept and gave her support to move forward to bring back a final agreement with the county.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

Clearlake City Council approves first reading of proposed medical marijuana cultivation ordinance

CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The Clearlake City Council on Thursday night gave unanimous approval to a first reading of a new ordinance to establish rules for medical marijuana cultivation.

The proposed ordinance mirrors a county ordinance implemented last year, prohibiting grows on vacant parcels.

It suggests plant limits on residential parcels ranging from six plants on parcels of half an acre or less up to 48 plants on 40 acres or more; prohibits growing in mobile home parks – unless specified garden areas are designated – and multifamily dwellings; requires grows be screened from view; and requires processing amounts to match the number of plants that can be grown on parcels where the processing is taking place.

The approval followed a council discussion and only a small amount of public comment. The main concern from a couple who use the plant to manage pain and other health issues was that the plant limits don’t allow them to grow enough to use the plant in edibles.

City Manager Joan Phillipe introduced the ordinance, and told the council she received two communications from community members about it. One supported it, another, from Lower Lake attorney Ron Green, pointed out a need for clarification in wording regarding a proposed 10-foot setback on the smallest parcels.

Phillipe also explained that the Clearlake Planning Commission had recommended the council approve the ordinance at its May 7 meeting.

The commission had proposed some changes, including adding complaint-driven language that is broadened to include the ability for enforcement outside of complaints; reducing setbacks on parcels smaller than half an acre to 10 feet from the property line rather than 25 feet; and including daycare centers in the definition of “school” facilities.

The document said that cultivation within 600 feet of a public or private school is prohibited, and the suggestion to add private daycares to the school definition was an issue for Mayor Jeri Spittler.

She said the large distance requirement was a problem because it meant that if such a daycare opened in a residential area, it would prevent people from growing the marijuana they needed for health issues.

Spittler suggested that “activists” who oppose use of the drug could go around opening daycare centers to prevent marijuana growing.

The question of private daycare centers and distance from growing activity proved the main area of concern during the discussion.

Council member Denise Loustalot said the distance requirement was meant to help buffer schools and other areas where children frequented from the crimes that come to areas associated with marijuana growing.

In response to Spittler’s concerns about activists opening daycare centers, Council member Gina Fortino Dickson pointed out that licensed daycare providers must meet state requirements.

There were proposals to reduce the distance requirement, however, the council ultimately removed the reference to private daycares from the ordinance’s definition of schools.

The council approved the planning commission’s other proposed changes, including the setback reduction from 25 to 10 feet on smaller parcels and the complaint driven language.

At Fortino Dickson’s suggestion, the council also added a requirement that the person with the medical marijuana recommendation live at the residence where the marijuana is grown.

Luiz moved to approve the ordinance’s first reading, which was approved 5-0.

The council will hold its second and final reading of the ordinance at its June 13 meeting.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

Judge’s proposed decision finds for county in suit over Rattlesnake Island environmental studies

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – A judge has issued a proposed ruling in a lawsuit filed by a group that sued the county over a building project on Rattlesnake Island, finding there was not sufficient evidence to support allegations that the county didn’t require sufficient environmental studies before allowing the project to move forward.

Judge Michael Lunas issued the proposed statement of decision on Tuesday in the Friends of Rattlesnake Island’s suit against the county of Lake and the Lake County Board of Supervisors.

Emeryville resident John Nady, who has owned the 57-acre island off of Clearlake Oaks since 2003, was named as a real party of interest in the suit, which was filed in late 2011, as Lake County News has reported.

Friends of Rattlesnake Island, which formed shortly before filing the suit, sought a writ of mandate in its suit against the county as well as a requirement that an environmental impact report be completed before Nady could go forward with building a 2,930-square-foot residence, 1,258-square-foot caretaker's cabin, standalone bathroom and utility trenching on the island.

Lunas found the claims in the lawsuit alleging that the county failed to carry out enough environmental study to lack sufficient evidence, and said that zoning ordinances allowed Nady to use the island for residential purposes, with the island having been used for similar purposes for years.

Friends of Rattlesnake Island’s attorney, Rachel Mansfield-Howlett, did not respond to messages seeking comment, and Lake County News was unable to make contact with Nady’s attorney, Frederic Schrag.

County Counsel Anita Grant said Wednesday that, because the decision is still not final, she can’t offer much in the way of comment at this point.

Lunas said the parties have 15 days to serve and file objections to his statement of decision. He will consider those filings in a final statement of decision.

Sarah Ryan, one of the members of the Friends of Rattlesnake Island, said the group needs to confer and determine a way forward, since Judge Lunas’ proposed ruling is allowing them to submit additional briefs. “We will definitely take advantage of that.”

Ryan said the proposed decision does not take into account certain facts, and she expects Mansfield-Howlett will submit that information on behalf of the group.

The suit was filed in response to the Board of Supervisors’ 3-2 decision in September 2011 to grant Nady’s appeal of a May 2010 Lake County Planning Commission vote requiring him to complete a focused environmental impact report on the island’s cultural archaeological resources.

One of the group’s key concerns is the island’s status as a cultural, religious and political center for the Elem Pomo, who call it “Elem-Modun.”

The island is the location of many prehistoric and historic sites, and was placed on the California Register of Historical Resources in 2008.

Elem tribal members say the island was illegally taken from them in 1877.

Lunas, the newest judge on the Lake County Superior Court bench, heard arguments in the case on Feb. 21.

“The County conducted environmental review of the impacts to aesthetics and adopted mitigations designed to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level,” Lunas wrote in his 39-page proposed decision. “There is no substantial evidence to demonstrate that potential impacts were not identified or that the mitigation does not reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.”

Judge Lunas found that there was no substantial evidence to show that there were potential project impacts that the county didn’t consider or that the project would cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of the Island, or any part thereof, as a historical resource.”

He also stated that the evidence presented didn’t prove that the project would prevent the island from being included in the National Register of Historic Places and the State Register of Historic Resources.

A brief history of the island’s planning issues

Rattlesnake Island has been the source of numerous public planning hearings, county actions as well as legal wrangling for nearly a decade.

According to county and court documents, Nady first proposed to build a caretake dwelling and standalone field bathroom on the island in 2004, applying for and obtaining septic permits for the buildings.

In January 2005, the Board of Supervisors sought – and received – a court order to stop Nady’s building project until mitigation and artifact studies were completed after it was determined that the county incorrectly issued him the septic system permits.

Later that month, the Lake County Planning Commission ordered Nady to carry out further study before beginning his project.

In April 2005 Nady applied for the permits to complete his proposed project, revising his plans in October 2007 to include the main residence.

In 2008, the county contracted with archaeologist Thomas Gates to evaluate the sites archaeological resources, with Gates performing an investigation the following spring.

“In sum, Gates found that the discovered archeological materials did not present much further information potential and, in his opinion, with a high degree of certainty, there were not present any unique archeological resources at the site of the Project,” according to Lunas’ proposed decision.

Based on an evaluation of Gates’ work, the Community Development Department prepared an initial study that identified potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources and aesthetics, proposed mitigation and mitigation monitoring measures to reduce impacts. County staff recommended approval of the project based on a mitigated negative declaration.

In May 2010, the Lake County Planning Commission voted to require that Nady complete a focused environmental impact report to look specifically at Rattlesnake Island’s cultural and archaeological resources.

The Board of Supervisors agreed to hear Nady’s appeal of that decision, with Nady arguing that a mitigated negative declaration be sufficient instead.

The appeal was heard over two meetings in August and September 2011, before the board voted 3-2 – with Supervisors Anthony Farrington and Denise Rushing dissenting – to allow Nady to move forward without completing the focused environmental impact report.

Friends of Rattlesnake Island would later apply unsuccessfully three different times to get a restraining order to stop further work on the project.

The group filed its lawsuit against the county in November 2011.

Judge’s take on the evidence

Lunas’ proposed statement of decision went through a list of items he said lacked substantial evidence.

Among them, he questioned the claims in the suit that the project has altered or substantially changed the archaeological resources, that unique archaeological resources existed at the project site or that such resources may be substantially adversely changed.

An Elem Pomo was not used as the project’s American Indian monitor, but Lunas didn’t find evidence that the absence of an Elem monitor impacted the environmental review’s validity or integrity.

“The values and feelings that the Elem Pomo have for the Island as a historical and spiritual place are definite and certain,” Lunas wrote. “However, this Project is not the barrier to the physical contact, access and use of the Island – Nady’s ownership controls those claims.”

The inquiry that the Friends of Rattlesnake Island group is seeking under the California Environmental Quality Act relates to whether the project “will affect the environment of persons in general and not whether a project will otherwise affect particular persons in a specific manner,” Lunas said.

Lunas said that, based on zoning ordinance, Nady has the right to construct two residences and use the island for residential purposes.

“For years, the Island has been substantially exposed to the type of use and activities occasioned by residential occupancy, involving farming, ranching and recreational activities,” Lunas wrote. “These activities are not subject to CEQA review and have been lawful use of the island by the owner. There is no substantial evidence to suggest that the residential use of the Island intended by the Project will cause any real change in that environment or the utilization of the lands by Nady.”

Lunas ordered Nady’s counsel to prepare and present a form of judgment in preparation for a final decision.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.

052213 Friends of Rattlesnake Island Proposed Statement of Decision