Councilman Jim Irwin was absent from Tuesday's meeting during which the two documents, and their final approval, was discussed at length.
The general plan update has been in the works for years. Following public workshops late last year, it was discovered that language about a specific plan area – relating to the 600-acre City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District (CLMSD) property south of the city limits along Highway 175 – had inadvertently been left out after being approved by the council in 2007.
At its Feb. 25 meeting the Lakeport Planning Commission approved resolutions that recommended adoption of the general plan update and certifying the final EIR.
The commission at that time also recommended adding in language about the specific area plan, which is meant to provide “sufficient direction and details” regarding the city's future expansion of its sphere of influence (SOI) related to the specific area plan as well as the property's potential development.
The draft general plan's land use element describes the specific plan area this way: “This designation covers the city-owned property and a few private properties south of the current SOI but within the proposed SOI. The area is proposed for single and multiple-family residential; including cooperative ownership properties to serve the vacation market; a golf course; and limited commercial, such as a clubhouse or restaurant. Based on the recommended density range of 1-2 units per acre, the Specific Plan Area could see between 600 and 1,200 residential units at buildout.”
The commission accepted Community Development Department staff recommendations that would require a specific plan be prepared for developing the area. That document would analyze development and its proposed distribution, as well as infrastructure and “other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan.” It also would lay out standards for land development and conservation.
Additional language the city's general plan consultant suggested should be added included the following paragraph: “The Specific Plan Area is a high priority for the City for a number of reasons. First it is the site of the City's wastewater treatment, storage, and disposal facilities which must be operational at all times and expanded periodically in order to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permit and accommodate future growth. Second, a preliminary analysis has been completed that indicates that the existing treatment facility could be upgraded to tertiary treatment and the treated water used to irrigate parks, golf course, landscaping, and food crops (subject to RWQCB permit). This is beneficial because water is a valuable commodity in Lakeport. Third, the City has had an interest in the feasibility of developing a golf course for many years.”
The specific plan area has never been subject to public land use evaluation or a planning process by the city except for activities associated with the city's wastewater facilities. The city will have to complete a specific plan before submitting an application to the Local Area Formation Commission to amend the city's sphere of influence.
At Tuesday's meeting, several local residents raised issues with the plans, including Upper Lake resident Betsy Cawn, who said she had wanted to appeal the planning commission's decision but found there was no way to do so under the California Environmental Quality Act.
She rebutted a statement made by staff that the general plan itself had been reviewed in December workshops, saying at no time during those meetings were the drafts of the general plan or EIR discussed. Cawn also pointed to inconsistencies in the documents, and read a long list of other problems she had with them.
“You guys can't have it both ways,” she said, adding that they can't attach a large-scale subdivision to the city's south end and still maintain Lakeport's small town charm and support the integrity of its downtown plan. “Those two things are really in conflict.”
Cawn said she believed the major changes being sought in the documents require that they be recirculated to the public.
Anthony Farrington, who represents the greater Lakeport area on the Board of Supervisors, said he received an e-mail from Council member Suzanne Lyons asking for county input.
Farrington suggested the city look at a standalone water element such as the county had created as part of its general plan process, which concluded last fall. He also discussed traffic mitigation fees and noted restrictions on the size of “big box” stores that can help local businesses.
He questioned why the city wanted to keep its sphere of influence on the western side of Highway 29 when some residents in that area had been resistant to annexation.
Community Development and Utilities Director Mark Brannigan said the city is looking more to the south where they see the growth taking place. He said that's what the community wants.
Business owner Cheri Holden said she also had concerned about the way the documents were being handled. “I have some problems in general with our general plan and the EIR.”
She said the city needs to do the best job they can with the plans. Holden said she didn't believe the documents addressed climate change and suggested taking out the enlarged sphere of influence altogether.
“I don't think our community is ready or needs that at this point,” she said, suggesting the council wait for Irwin to return before taking a vote.
Roberta Actor-Thomas, who lives in Kelseyville but owns property at Lakeport's south end, said the city has enough commercial and industry development area – about 60 acres – to last until 2025, and enough residential lots to go through 2017. She suggested having mixed use areas where residential development is located over businesses.
She said formula store and national chains “suck money out of our community,” and don't create high quality jobs.
Longtime city resident Bob Bridges said the council has, over the years, done a good job preserving the city's small-town charm.
However, like others who spoke before him, Bridges questioned the general plan, saying he felt it was playing down important factors such as proposed growth.
The draft general plan suggests that by changing the city's sphere just over, 2,800 new residents will be added, which he said sounds reasonable for a city of just over 5,000.
However, he said he started doing the math, and when adding up all of the potential building sites the new plan would include, it comes to more than 2,000. At 2.5 people per home, the number of new residents is much higher then the plan reports.
A 3-percent growth rate, which he said is aggressive, would require 75 new houses a year and a total of 1,100 building sites.
“This plan has just got so much extra area built into it. I don't know how it got by everybody,” said Bridges. “We're going to become like a Rohnert Park the way this is looking.”
Bridges, who works in the county counsel's office but was speaking as a private citizen, said he's seen a lot of economic studies over the years, and all show that residential development doesn't pay for itself.
Local governments usually only get about 12 cents on every dollars of property tax, Bridges said. So for every $300,000 home built, the city would get $360 of the annual $3,000 property tax bill. If the city grew at 3 percent a year, those 75 new homes would only bring in $27,000 in property tax annually, but would cost about $250,000 annually to police.
Pointing to a city mission statement on the wall that mentioned the city growing to a population of between 10,000 and 20,000 – not the 7,500 the updated plan is said to cover – Bridges said he believed that was the city's real goal.
Bridges suggested more utilities rate hikes will be necessary to cover water and sewer system expansions, so he said the general plan should focus on infill. He stated the specific plan area was “unneeded and unjustified.”
“It's reasonable to build in a surplus factor,” said Bridges. “I just think you're getting carried away.”
Council debates how to plan for the future
During the council's discussion, Lyons said she believed the expanded sphere of influence seems to be about the CLMSD property and its development.
When she's asked city staff about its inclusion, they've told her that it's what the council wants. “This may be a different city council and a different time in which this project was started,” she said.
She added, “Maybe the model we're looking at is more of a 1950s, drive-to-it-subdivision around a golf course that is not viable for 2009.”
There already are concerns about water availability and golf courses are very water intensive, said Lyons. She suggested that, by not changing the city's sphere of influence, several problems – including “significant, unavoidable impacts” the plans cites – would go away.
Kim Hudson, who works with Quad Knopf, the city's planning consultant, explained that even if they took out the sphere of influence there still would be traffic issues. “We usually expect to have unavoidable impacts, especially on a program level EIR,” Hudson said.
Councilman Bob Rumfelt said many of the questions about the plan and impacts can't be answered now because they don't know how technology will change in the years ahead.
Referring to water supply, he said many things are changing in the field of wastewater treatment. “Water is going to be the new petroleum.”
He said there's talk about being able to treat wastewater to the point it may be drinkable, but the technology isn't cheap enough yet. He added that in 20 years they may not even use roads anymore.
Lyons posed the question, “What is it that we really want?”
She believed the EIR and plan could be approved without the sphere of influence changes.
Mayor Ron Bertsch asked if she thought the city should have influence over land it owns. Lyons pointed out the land is still being paid for and isn't owned outright by the city.
Councilman Roy Parmentier, who has long advocated for the golf course development on the CLMSD property, said it should be brought into the city's sphere.
“We're gonna grow,” he said. A golf course will bring tourists and money. “If they like it here they'll move here.”
The houses that will be built won't be low-income, he added, and the owners will pay their taxes.
Lyons said she saw just that day 10 foreclosures published in the local paper. Some of those homes were valued at more than $400,000. “Maybe they don't have as much money as we think they do,” she said of homeowners.
Parmentier, who appeared clearly annoyed during the discussion, said they need to plan for their city's future, even if the land isn't developed. If a development was built, however, he said the city would get a new tertiary treatment plant that would produce water for its parks and golf course. “We'd be saving water.”
He added, “Don't say no 'til you see the picture.”
Lyons said everything she's heard about golf courses is that they don't make money. Both Parmentier and Rumfelt responded that nothing had been finalized. Parmentier added that there isn't even a concept on the table.
That land and its development, however, had been the subject of extensive discussion in 2006 and 2007, with the city looking at having Boeger Land Development build a project there. As part of that proposal, the company was given a first right of refusal on purchasing the Dutch Harbor property on the lakeshore, where a hotel was proposed to be built.
Council asked City Attorney Steve Brookes for his thoughts on what to do next, and he suggested they bring it back for a full council.
Before the council continued the matter, they agreed by consensus to remove restrictions on the size of big box stores from the plan. Rumfelt said if the market won't handle such businesses, they won't attempt to locate here. He agreed with Bridges that residential development doesn't bring communities money, but businesses do.
Parmentier said he thought the big box provision wasn't in the plan. Brannigan said the council asked it to be added after a workshop last November.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
{mos_sb_discuss:3}
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
