LAKEPORT – Following a lengthy discussion Tuesday evening, the Lakeport City Council decided to strike a suggestion in its redevelopment implementation plan that the waterfront development plan be extended to the Lakeport Lagoons area.
The council also decided against including a goal in the implementation plan that included a proposed amendment to add eminent domain to the city's formal redevelopment plan.
Redevelopment Agency Director Richard Knoll took the 25-page implementation plan's update to the council, where it was the topic of extensive council discussion and a public hearing, all of which lasted about an hour and 15 minutes.
Knoll explained that redevelopment agencies are required to adopt implementation plans every five years, following a public hearing.
His report to the council noted that the implementation plan must contain a redevelopment agency's specific goals and objectives for its project area, specific programs and estimated expenditures proposed to be made during the next five years, and an explanation of how these will eliminate blight within the project area and implement the low- and moderate-income housing requirements.
Council members brought up a concern about adding a new area to the waterfront development plan. Originally, the plan had ended at C Street, but that was extended down to the Lakeport Lagoons. Knoll said it was only a staff suggestion.
“This plan proposes to implement an effort to look at these areas and consider looking at them for waterfront planning purposes,” he said, adding that the plan doesn't mandate that it occur.
He explained that there is a distinction between the implementation plan and the redevelopment plan itself.
Changing the formal redevelopment plan wasn't on the table, Knoll emphasized.
If the implementation plan was authorized, would that authorize eminent domain? asked Council member Suzanne Lyons.
The question arose from one of the implementation plan's goals – a proposed amendment to the redevelopment plan to add eminent domain.
Knoll's response to Lyons' question was no. “That requires an amendment to the redevelopment plan,” he said.
While the implementation plan can propose such an amendment, that's a different matter than changing the actual plan. Knoll explained that amending the plan would require public input and participation, a California Environmental Quality Act review, nine to 10 months of work, and significant funds to pay for the work of attorneys and consultants.
City resident Verna Schaffer said she is concerned about the city's use of eminent domain, and said there should be some restrictions on it. She said many residential areas of Lakeport can be considered blight.
She also questioned the addition of the Lakeport Lagoons, a residential area, to the waterfront plan. Because they're private properties, she said they should be left out of the waterfront redevelopment plan.
Schaffer's husband, David Marantette, said the Supreme Court “set a boogeyman loose on the land” when it allowed for eminent domain.
He was concerned about the way the plan's language had changed to add the Lakeport Lagoons area. “That is all houses, private homes.”
Two or three councils from now, the decision may be made to do something since it was left in the proposal. He asked the current council to restore the original language.
“Words have meanings, and we would like the specific meaning to not include those areas under eminent domain,” he said.
Marie Edmundson, a neighbor of Marantette's and Schaffer's, asked why the additional area was added.
Knoll replied that it was prepared by city staff, has been subject to public input, and over the last several months went through 20 different versions and was refined to the one he was presenting.
“We simply took the waterfront area and included it within that particular item of the implementation plan,” he said.
He emphasized that the implementation plan doesn't change the existing redevelopment plan, which covers 612 acres, the boundaries of which was adopted in 1999.
Mayor Ron Bertsch told Knoll that his understanding of residents' concerns was that they believed a walkway might be constructed in front of their homes as part of the waterfront development project. He said he didn't see the redevelopment agency going that way.
Knoll said no walkway is proposed. The waterfront development plan is a separate item that would be developed, the contents of which aren't included in the redevelopment implementation plan.
Edmundson said the city should take care of what it has now, rather that worry about growing.
Todd Falconer voiced his general concerns over redevelopment and where it's going.
“I see no point in developing a waterfront program here when we have real, existing problems in our community which don't seem to be addressed,” he said.
The top glaring example that he said came to mind is the Vista Point Shopping Center, which still has no roof over part of it, and which he considers blight. “If redevelopment is to exist, it should exist to fix problems like that,” he said, not to develop destination waterfront communities.
Lyons raised the issue about the proposed amendment for adding eminent domain to the city's redevelopment plan.
Knoll said the implementation plan itself is supposed to be broad in scope.
He said he wanted to put it into perspective, and said there was much more to it than the eminent domain item. Knoll referred to a Lake County News headline from Monday which had referred to that issue in the plan.
Eminent domain, he said, isn't a focus of the implementation plan, which also looks at business recruitment and retention, and many other items.
The five year implementation plan doesn't mandate eminent domain. He said the council had brought up the issue of adding eminent domain to the main redevelopment plan last year.
Knoll said the council can take that goal out of the implementation plan and it won't be pursued. He added that city staff is not advocating its use, and that it's a last resort when assembling property for projects. The preferred approach always is working with property owners in a mutually beneficial way.
“Redevelopment agencies do not take the issue of eminent domain or the use of eminent domain lightly,” said Knoll.
City Attorney Steve Brookes said the trend among governments is leading toward the restriction of using eminent domain. He said eminent domain is a political football, and the way citizens can deal with it is by voting for new council members or recalling current ones if they don't like how eminent domain is being used.
“Everyone needs to be educated about what it does and doesn't do,” he said. “We've used it once. We've negotiated every other time.”
The one time it was used, said Brookes, involved the purchase of the City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District land, which resulted in a beneficial tax break for the seller.
Councilman Roy Parmentier asked that they amend the implementation plan's language and remove the extension of the land to Lakeport Lagoons area, which the council agreed to do.
Councilman Jim Irwin asked to remove the language suggesting the eminent domain amendment.
Parmentier disagreed with that, suggesting the city may need it to deal with the Willopoint resort, owned by developer Barry Johnson.
“If we don't have it, we'll have a tough row to hoe,” he said.
Parmentier asked if they can adopt a separate project area for Willopoint. Knoll said it's possible. However, there would be implications to do that, given that the property is within the current redevelopment project area.
Brookes suggested they get a special legal opinion on that issue. “My view is, the power is limited,” he said.
He noted that the city already has eminent domain capability, and might have to condemn properties to build streets. The power should be used judiciously.
Councilman Bob Rumfelt said he was ambivalent about it. “If it relieves some peoples' concerns I'd say do away with it.”
That, ultimately, was the consensus, as was rolling back the waterfront redevelopment plan to the C Street boundary, away from the Lakeport Lagoons.
The council directed Knoll to make the changes in the plan and bring it back to them at their March 3 meeting for final approval.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
{mos_sb_discuss:3}
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
