Jeri Spittler, owner of Girlfriends salon on Lakeshore Drive, confronted the council once it emerged from a closed session discussion before the start of the regular meeting that involved ABC Hair Salon, located at 14071 Lakeshore Drive.
Spittler, a fixture at council meetings over the past year, has criticized the city for the condition of the building that houses ABC Hair Salon, which is the site of the old Austin Resort.
The property, located across from Clearlake City Hall, has increasingly run into disrepair in recent years, and Spittler criticized the city for having what she has called one of the most blighted properties on Lakeshore.
Following the May 13 council meeting – at which the council voted to cut 9.5 full-time equivalent positions, and eliminate code enforcement and other services to deal with an increasingly bleak financial outlook – Spittler said she approached Mayor Judy Thein about fixing up the 6,000-square-foot building and renting out five other spaces in it to make money to help keep the city's parks open.
Spittler said she got the go-ahead from Thein as well as Public Works Director Doug Herren to do what she called a “grassroots redevelopment project” to fix up the building.
The event was planned for June 5, and Spittler said that she has received overwhelming community support, with businesses chipping in to offer services at discounted prices and community members donating money.
She had lined up help, paint and building supplies, and enough donations to spruce up the building. Even new windows were put into the salon, where the owner had a cracked window.
But when the council emerged from the closed session, they asked Spittler to hold off.
Thein and Herren both were absent from the Thursday meeting. Vice Mayor Joyce Overton had the gavel, and she announced the council had directed City Administrator Dale Neiman to negotiate with the salon owner regarding moving out. She asked Spittler to hold off on the project, which Spittler responded to with harsh words for the council.
During public comment, community member Pete Gascoigne asked about the negotiations, and Neiman said the council was asking the salon owner if she is willing to move. The city will have to pay to relocate her, and then they can tear the building down.
Standing at the back of the room, Spittler called out to ask why the action was being taken now. Gascoigne wanted to know if it was a move to get the building taken down.
Overton said removing the building was always the idea.
She acknowledged that Spittler had worked hard to put the project together.
“Why would you do that to me when it's all planned?” Spittler said.
A still-incensed Spittler called the decision “a power move” in a Friday interview with Lake County News.
Neiman told Lake County News on Friday that when the city purchased the building several years ago “the goal was remove the buildings and sell it to someone who would build what the city wanted on the property.”
He said the city can't legally evict anyone from the property, and they're required to pay relocation expenses in accordance with the procedures in state law. He suggested they would need a written legal opinion by the city attorney to know the possible implications of renting out the building.
Neiman said it's his understanding that several businesses have been relocated from the original
buildings on the property, including a restaurant that the city paid $60,000 to relocate in 2006, and $10,000 for another business in 2005. Attorney fees also are paid for each relocation, he said.
In the first year he worked for the city Neiman said he recommended a building to the south of the current one be demolished, a proposal the council agreed with and the building was then taken down.
He said the city has endured past criticism when tenants were in the building, and there also is an issue with the government competing with the private sector in offering rentals. “Is it appropriate for the city to invest money in the building so it can rented it while there are approximately 40 vacant buildings on Lakeshore Drive?”
Neiman said that the building has “serious problems that would be costly to fix before it could be rented,” including dangerous electrical wiring, ramps, walkways and doorways that aren't compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, no emergency exit signage with backup lighting, a structural hazard from drywall that's coming down, a leaking swamp cooler, lack of adequate heating and ventilation, eaves with dry rot, and windows and doors that do not have safety glass and this creates a safety hazard.
He said all of those problems constitution violations of the ADA rules and city building codes. “The cost would be substantial to fix these problems and it would not make sense to spend the money to do so.”
Neiman said the council authorized him to explore the potential relocation over the next two months. If that's not successful, then the building could be painted.
He said the council hadn't approved “whatever is being proposed” for the building currently, and that with the city's staffing problems “we are not able to respond to various matters in a timely manner.”
Neiman added that Spittler “tends to lecture and yell at the council and staff and dismiss our rationale for dealing with various situations and problems.”
Spittler, who has called on the council to fire Neiman in recent months, called his explanations “baloney.”
The project would have cost the city no money, she said. “There's absolutely no reason that building can't be generating money for us.”
She added that the building is in a fabulous location. “There's nothing wrong with that building that a couple of hammers won't fix.”
Spittler said she still plans to host a barbecue at the building at noon June 5.
Also at the Thursday meeting, the council confirmed penalties for a nuisance abatement case that wasn't cleaned up on time, voted to confirm seven other nuisance abatement cases, approved the city's draft housing element and an extension until October of the city's 2009-10 budget.
The council also approved making a loan from taxable housing fund bond proceeds to cover a payment of city state redevelopment funds to the state.
At Neiman's suggestion, the council approved a plan for short-term borrowing from special revenue funds. “We need to be able to do short-term borrowing so we can pay our bills,” Neiman said.
The money will have to be paid back to the special funds, he noted.
The council voted 3-1, with Councilman Roy Simons voting no on the borrowing resolutions.
Neiman had also taken to the council a proposal to drop out of the county's marketing program, which costs $10,000 a year.
However, he said at the beginning of a brief discussion that he wanted to put off having the council make a decision until he had a chance to speak to the chamber and local businesses about other options to remain in the program, which helps bring tourism to the area.
Supervisor Jeff Smith urged the council not to drop out of the program, which he said is well worth the money.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
