Supervisor Rob Brown chaired Tuesday's board meeting, as Board Chair Denise Rushing and Vice Chair Anthony Farrington are in Washington, D.C. this week for President Barack Obama's inauguration.

Last week, the board held a discussion regarding the Lucerne Hotel, which has housed the Lucerne Christian Conference Center for many years, as Lake County News has reported.

The historic building, the construction of which began in 1926, has been used for Christian retreats and camps but is being put on the market by its owners – a group of Northern California fundamentalist Baptist churches – because bookings were dropping for the coming year.

During its Jan. 13 discussion, the board supported doing studies on the building to help market it to a sound buyer.

On Tuesday, Deputy Administrative Officer Matt Perry went to the board with the proposal to reallocate income from the Community Block Grant Building program in order to use it to look at the structural soundness of the building and to pay for an appraisal.

Perry said county staff has contacted some structural engineers to ask about pricing and have concluded that $30,000 is the ceiling amount to pay for that examination. The scope of work can be more clearly defined once the county puts out a request for proposals.

Regarding the pricing for appraisals, Perry said they've received quotes ranging from $7,500 to $15,000.

Brown said those numbers were reasonable. County Chief Administrative Officer Kelly Cox said the county has more money available if necessary, but they don't want to go higher than those amounts. Brown added that right now the county is getting very good deals on construction-related contracts.

Supervisor Jim Comstock asked if any projects wouldn't be funded should the money be moved over. Perry said no, that the only other project close to being designed is the Ninth Avenue sidewalk project in Lucerne. He added that the county always has the ability to use the funding for other projects, as long as it's attached to a written grant.

“Here's the catch-22 – the state wants us to spend down this month,” said Cox, noting that if they don't the state won't give the county more of the grant money in the future.

“I do think we need to do this because of how big and important this building is to this area,” said Brown. “We have to do something.”

Brown reiterated that the potential study amounts were reasonable, and the county could be reimbursed in the future by the buyer.

Cox said the state had originally provided the county with a grant to study the building last year. However, Cox reported at the last meeting that the building owners' representative said they weren't interested in selling the building so the study had been dropped. It was later discovered that the building's owners never heard about the possibility of the study until afterward.

Brown said the county was lucky to find someone – specifically, Lynne and Bernie Butcher – to take on the restoration of the Tallman Hotel and the rebuilding of the Blue Wing Saloon in Upper Lake.

Those were big projects, but they would be nothing compared to what it would take to restore the Lucerne Hotel property if it deteriorates, said Brown.

“We need to do everything we can to make sure that doesn't happen with this building – within reason,” he said.

Cox said county staff will do everything they can to help the old hotel's owners fund a new buyer.

“Now that we know the board's direction, we're really going to do everything we can to ensure the future of that building is up to its full potential,” Cox said.

Lucerne resident Donna Christopher was the only community member to speak during public comment. She thanked the board for the time and effort being spent on Lucerne, adding that she appreciates their effort to be fiscally conservative. Christopher also thanked county staff for quickly sharing information on community projects.

“It's great to see everybody realizing how good redevelopment can be,” said Supervisor Jeff Smith, calling redevelopment “a great tool.”

Smith offered resolutions to transfer the grant funding for the Lucerne Hotel study as well as curb, gutter and sidewalk projects in the Northshore Redevelopment Project Area, all of which passed 3-0.

In other redevelopment news, the board approved a bid presented by Deputy Redevelopment Director Eric Seely in the amount of $128,899.15 from Fedco Construction of Santa Rosa for a sidewalk improvement project from Fourth through Fifth Avenue in Lucerne, and a $20,000 bid from Ruzicka and Associates for construction inspection services on the project.

Nineteen bids were received for the sidewalk project, said Seely.

Cox said a Lake County company had come in at No. 3 in the bid process for the sidewalk project. The county's purchasing rules allow preference to be given to local contractors if they're up to 5 percent over the lowest bid, but even then the local company's offer wasn't quite close enough. Cox said county staff had looked closely for a way to be able to give the work to a local contractor.

The board approved both bids in 3-0 votes.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

The City Council meeting will begin at 6 p.m. in the council chambers at Lakeport City Hall, 225 Park St., Lakeport. A 5 p.m. staff workshop will be held to discuss the city's business plan update and conduct a mid-year budget review.

The first major piece of business for the council Tuesday will be a public hearing on an appeal filed by Scott Schellinger of the Santa Rosa-based Schellinger Brothers, builders of the Parkside Subdivision Project next to Westside Community Park, of a Dec. 10 Lakeport Planning Commission decision.

Schellinger asked the commission to approve a revision to the subdivision, which would result in a through-street being replaced by a bridge with a cul-de-sac at 1297 Craig Ave., 1226 Wrigley St. and 1227 Wrigley St.

The 95-lot subdivision, scheduled to be built in three phases, is in phase one, with 14 homes of 35 built, according to city documents. Phase one also includes the development of Wrigley Street, originally to extend from Westside Road and connect to Craig Avenue, requiring construction of a bridge over Forbes Creek.

The reason for the request, according to a report by Planning Services Manager Andrew Britton, is that after the subdivision application was approved an elderberry tree was found within the creek area where the bridge would need to be built. The project's biological assessment failed to discover the tree.

While city staff concluded the change was in conformance with city ordinances, the commission denied Schellinger's revision request in a 3-2 vote, citing concerns over having the subdivision limited to a single entry at Westside Park Road and the lack of documentation about the elderberry tree's impact on bridge construction.

Redevelopment audits, proposed property purchases up for consideration

In other business, the council – sitting jointly as the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency – will hear a presentation on the Redevelopment, Housing and Economic Development Department's 2008 Annual Report, financial audit for 2007-08, the State Controller's Report, the Housing and Community Development Department Report and the draft Redevelopment Agency Five-Year Implementation Plan.

The audit report shows that, as of June 30, 2008, the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency had $6.6 million in assets and $5.6 million in liabilities, for total net assets of approximately $965,824.

Also in redevelopment business, council members will consider a report from city Redevelopment Manager Richard Knoll concerning redevelopment acquiring several city-owned properties – Dutch Harbor, Bevins Street, the fire and police stations, Third Street to Natural High and "possibly others," according to Knoll's report.

"The agency has the ability to actively manage their development, participate financially in their development, and get them on the tax rolls producing tax increment revenue," Knoll's report says.

The sales also would generate funds for the city's general fund and could help fund programs such as the city's Business Stabilization Loan Program, which offers local businesses working capital – loans of between $15,000 and $75,000, with interest set at 1 percent of the original loan amount – during times of economic downturn, according to Knoll.

That will be important for local businesses, which Knoll said are suffering due to the economic climate.

While Lakeport won't see any federal bailout money, "Nonetheless, there are business entities here that are in real trouble and may go bankrupt and/or close their doors," said Knoll, noting that the city depends on these local businesses for general fund revenue.

"Business closures could have a devastating impact on the community in a number of ways," he said.

Other redevelopment business will include an update on Bruce Shimizu of Clearwater Homes' proposed Avalon Housing Project on Berry Street. Shimizu is asking for $713,000 to fund property acquisition.

However, Knoll's report on the project said it would be "inappropriate" to commit the money. He said staff believes Shimizu needs to perform in moving through the entitlement process, and the agency also doesn't have sufficient funding currently available. Knoll is suggesting the agency commit to a $257,000 loan to fund land carry and predevelopment/entitlement expenses.

Dr. Alan Sampson, who wants to develop a medical clinic and office building on 11th Street, also is asking the agency for financial assistance for right-of-way improvements on Pool Street, even though the project is not within the redevelopment project area.

Knoll's report suggests offering no more than $30,000 and arranging a payback agreement for the city to reimburse the redevelopment agency from property tax revenue generated from Sampson's improved property. He said the right-of-way improvements will improve pedestrian safety and circulation.

Lake monitoring, police funds also on agenda

Under council business, council members are expected to approve and authorize Mayor Ron Bertsch to sign an agreement with the county of Lake to adopt the mercury and nutrient total maximum daily load monitoring and implementation plan.

They also will discuss the proposed transportation impact mitigation fee program, approve the memorandum of understanding for the "golden handshake" early retirement program and set a date for a Brown Act workshop.

Kevin Burke, the city's police chief and interim city manager, will ask the council to receive and allocate Supplemental Law Enforcement Services funds for this fiscal year in the amount of $100,000. The funds, according to a report from Burke, are to be used for "front line municipal police services."

In City Council communications, the formation of and appointments to the Senior Advisory Committee, Measure J Committee and Student Liaison Committee will be carried out.

The council also will hold a closed session for a performance evaluation of Burke as interim city manager, consideration of an employee disciplinary issues and property negotiations for 1473 Martin St.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Clearlake will hold a Public Hearing on Thursday, February 12, 2009, at 6:00 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 14050 Olympic Drive, Clearlake, California for the Provinsalia development project on the following:

1. Whether to certify if the Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. Whether to change the General Plan land use designation from “Managed Development – Resource Protection” to “Specific Plan.”

3. Whether to adopt the “Draft Provinsalia Specific Plan.”

4. Whether to rezone the property from “Resource Protection” to “Specific Plan.”

The project is located on 292 acres in the southeast corner of Clearlake, east of South Dam Road and north of Cache Creek. The Assessor Parcel Numbers are 010-008-31, 012-040-15, and APN 012-040-16.

The applicant is Lake County Resort Partners.

You are invited to come to the Public Hearing to ask questions and/or comment on the application. Information on the project is available at City Hall for review at the Community Development Department. Written comments may be submitted to the City Administrator prior to or during the public hearing. City Hall Council Chambers are handicap accessible. For further information contact City Administrator Dale W. Neiman at (707) 994-8201 xt. 120.

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

The Lucerne Hotel and its future are up in the air since the building's owners announced they were going to sell the building. Now the county is looking at ways to facilitate a sale to the right buyer. Photo by Elizabeth Larson.

LAKEPORT – The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted to explore several options meant to help the owners of the Lucerne Christian Conference Center – also known as the historic Lucerne Hotel – find a buyer for the property. {sidebar id=115}

The center's owners – a group of several Northern California fundamentalist Baptists churches – decided to put the property on the market last month, as Lake County News has reported.

The 75,000-square-foot, seven-story building has been run as a Christian conference center for decades, but the owners decided to put it up for sale after bookings for Christian retreats and camps in the coming year began to drop sharply.

Convening as the Lake County Redevelopment Board of Directors, supervisors heard a presentation by Deputy Redevelopment Director Eric Seely, who explained that county officials were very concerned that the wrong buyer – someone not interested in the building's intrinsic historic value and its place at the heart of the Lucerne community – could buy it and use it for ends that wouldn't benefit the town.

He presented them with a list of options for how the county might get involved with the property (see accompanying article, “County options for the Lucerne Hotel”).

During public comment, longtime Lucerne resident Donna Christopher said she's as fond of redevelopment as she is the federal government's bank bailout. However, she said she had more faith in county officials than those in the federal government when it comes to making the right decisions for communities.

“I truly see this as our last best hope in Lucerne,” she said of the Lucerne Hotel, also known to Lucerne residents as “the Castle.”

Christopher said she's concerned about the property falling into the wrong hands – “and I think we all know who I'm talking about,” she said, referring to some land speculators who have purchased large amounts of property in Lucerne, only to let the buildings sit in ruin.

If the county's plans for the town – including a promenade along the lake – are going to succeed, “we need this property,” she said. “It's key.”

Patricia Jonas Voulgaris said the building's renovation and use as a resort “would be the making of Lake County.” She said she and her husband, who own property on 13^th Avenue in Lucerne, have stayed at a larger version of the Lucerne Hotel in Quebec.

Voulgaris suggested the county approach Jim Fetzer, who has spoken of building a hotel on the lake, to see if he's interested in the property.

Lucerne resident Lenny Matthews said Lucerne has been held hostage by individuals who have purchased property in the town, hoping to get a big payout thanks to redevelopment.

Matthews said she didn't want to see the building fall into the hands of someone who would let it become a cobwebbed wreck.

Louise Talley, a former Northshore supervisor, said having a renovated Lucerne Hotel could turn Lucerne – and the rest of Lake County – around.

Anna Rose Ravenwoode said she supported the county using redevelopment or other funds to acquire the property if need be. She said having the building renovated could “dramatically and positively” promote the goals of redevelopment on the Northshore. Ravenwood added that the Castle would provide a great opportunity to show how redevelopment can work in a community.

During the board's discussion, Supervisor Rob Brown said it's no secret how he feels about redevelopment and the county government buying private property.

“This is a very tempting proposal here because it is a very nice property,” he said.

But, Brown warned, every community has its castle, a building or property that people have attachment to and want to see safeguarded. He said people living next to Konocti Harbor may feel th same as Lucerne's residents feel about the old hotel.

He said if the county buys the Lucerne Hotel, it could open the door to demands from other communities that their important properties also be purchased by the county. That's the same concept as the much-criticized federal bailout, he suggested.

Brown questioned if the Lucerne Hotel's purchase had ever officially been part of redevelopment's plan for the community. Seely said it wasn't, although it sits at the back of 13^th Avenue, which is a plan focus.

Brown added that there are a lot of different ideas about what the “right type” of ownership for the building is. He did, however, support conducting a study of the property.

Supervisor Jeff Smith said he thought the county could help facilitate a sale to a buyer who would restore the building. “This is a prime example of what redevelopment was created to help do.”

Citing a redevelopment staff suggestion, Smith supported the idea of purchasing some of the accompanying property parcels, which the Lucerne Hotel's owners have indicated they may start to sell off.

Smith said it would be a shame to see the property broken up. However, if the county purchased the property to hold it for a buyer, he said he didn't want the county to become involved in its longterm ownership. He said he would much rather see the county help the current owners find a buyer.

Brown asked what Smith's definition of “longterm ownership” was, adding that, due to the market, the county could end up holding it for a long time, and would have maintenance costs associated with that ownership.

Smith said that, if the county purchased the building, he would want to see it turned over within a year. For him, three to five years was longterm ownership.

He added that over the years county officials – in passing – had talked about how it would be great to have the building, much as they had talked about Mt. Konocti, which the county is in the process of purchasing.

Smith said he wanted to see the county do what it could to make the Lucerne Hotel “the jewel of Lake County,” noting the county has several jewels.

He asked Seely if there were concerns about earthquake retrofitting. Seely said no, that the building is built of wood with a stucco exterior.

Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Kelly Cox – also the county's chief administrative officer – said a hearing is scheduled for next week's board meeting on using Community Development Block Grant Money for studies related to the Castle.

“Whatever we do, I'd very much like to see us act in the interest of the community of Lucerne,” said Board Chair Denise Rushing.

She suggested the Lucerne Hotel needed to become an “economic engine” for the community. The question, she said, is how to get there, and she also supported a study to look at the options.

Rushing, like her other board colleagues, felt that the ideal solution was that the right kind of buyer comes forward. She said the county needed to “tread very carefully,” because it didn't have a lot of money to put into the Lucerne Hotel facility unless the price was very low.

“In the right situation we might have a role to play,” she said.

Cox said county staff had a very good meeting with the current owners, who are facing serious financial challenges and can't retain ownership of facility for a long period of time.

“That's what generates our concern,” he said. “If they're forced to sell it because of finances, they may have to sell it to the first person who wants to buy it.”

That person, said Cox, might propose to do something with the building that's totally inconsistent with redevelopment plans and what the community wants.

Like Brown, Supervisor Jim Comstock said he wasn't a fan of the county being involved in real estate purchases such as this one.

Earlier in the meeting, county staff had noted that last year they had proposed doing a feasibility study on the building's various uses, but a representative of the owners said the group wasn't interested.

“That concerns me a lot, that they would not have seen a year ago that they would have been in this position today,” he said.

Cox noted that the board of directors for the group that owns the Castle later indicated that, while their local representative had made the statement that they weren't interested, the board actually hadn't been notified of the offer.

Agreeing with Rushing that the building could be an economic engine, Comstock asked about a purchase price. Cox said one hadn't been suggested by the owners.

Cox warned that if the county did buy the building, the board should expect to hold it for about five years before resale.

Supervisor Anthony Farrington said that, from the county's perspective, they don't need a feasibility study to tell them that what's needed is a resort facility to draw visitors. He suggested the county help market the building.

Brown asked how much an appraisal and structural analysis might cost. Seely estimated $20,000 for the appraisal, with the assessment of the building's structure likely to run about $25,000.

Cox told the board that county staff had put on hold further discussions with the building's owner until it had guidance from the supervisors. He added they were very concerned about seeing the property sold off in pieces, because it would make it very hard to get a hotel developer interested.

Smith repeated his suggestion that the county purchase some of the accompanying property to help the owners until a new buyer is found.

Rushing passed the gavel Farrington, the board's vice chair, while she made the motion to authorize county redevelopment staff to explore all of the options Seely put forth, and to bring back to the board authorization to use grant funds for the appraisal and structural evaluation.

Smith seconded Rushing's motion, which was accepted by the board unanimously.

The board is expected to be given a tour of the facility in the near future.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

The Lucerne Christian Conference Center -- also known as the Lucerne Hotel -- is up for sale and the county will discuss whether to assist the owners with the sales process or purchase the land to hold it for a developer. Courtesy photo.

LAKEPORT – The Board of Supervisors – sitting jointly as the Lake County Redevelopment Board of Directors – will consider on Tuesday whether or not to take an active part in helping the owners of the Lucerne Christian Conference Center sell the historic Lucerne Hotel or if the county should consider purchasing the building using redevelopment funds.

The meeting begins at 9 a.m. in the board chambers at the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes. TV Channel 8 will broadcast the meeting live.

The discussion on the center is scheduled to begin at 11:15 a.m.

As Lake County News reported last month, the owners of the center and its Castlepoint Ministries announced their intention to close the building and put it on the market after demand for Christian camps and retreats in the coming year dropped off sharply.

The conference center, located at 3700 Country Club Drive, is housed in the historic Lucerne Hotel, the construction of which began in 1926.

The 75,000 square foot building has 77 guest rooms and sits on several parcels of land totaling about seven acres, according to a report to the Board of Supervisors from county Deputy Redevelopment Director Eric Seely.

The building has three main floors and seven floors in all when including its four-story tower, Seely noted. “It's one of the largest and tallest buildings in Lake County and certainly one of the most historic.”

Seely said county staffers have met with the owner's representatives to discuss “possible ways in which the Redevelopment Agency might be able to assist in locating an appropriate buyer to purchase this property.”

He added, “The future development of this property and revitalization of the hotel could have a significant beneficial impact on achievement of the Redevelopment Agency's goals and the future of the Lucerne community.”

Seely said it's important that the property's buyer has the resources needed to renovate and preserve the historic building. He suggested that, if the old hotel were operated as a motel and convention center that's open to the public, it could become a major attraction and an asset to the county's tourism and resort industry.

“There is no comparable facility in Lake County,” he stated in his report.

Last year the board approved county staff submitting a Community Development Block Grant for planning and technical assistance to determine the building's highest and best use, conduct and appraisal and perform a structural evaluation. But Seely said the building's owners at the time said they weren't interested in selling so the grant funds were redirected elsewhere.

He'll suggest to the board Tuesday that the county should proceed with that original study.

Seely's report outlines several significant concerns about the property.

For one, the owners want to sell it quickly, and the county is concerned that a buyer could acquire it who would use it “for purposes that are not in the community's best long-term interests.”

He said the owners also are considering selling off small portions of the property surrounding the hotel to cover the building's upkeep and maintenance. Seely said placing the property in multiple ownership could “decrease the likelihood that the property will ever attract the type of investor who would renovate the structure and operate it as a hotel/conference center.”

Redevelopment's plans for Lucerne, Seely explained in his report, include the development of 13^th Avenue as the town's commercial center. The hotel property is 13^th Avenue's backdrop, said Seely, and according to a history of the building 13^th Avenue was built specifically to lead to the building.

Not only could a revitalized hotel create jobs and give a shot in the arm to local tourism, rivaling other historic destinations, it also could fulfill redevelopment's goal of having a conference center on the Lucerne Promenade, said Seely.

Seely suggests that, given the economic climate, the right buyer might take a long time in coming. For that reason, he suggests the board consider purchasing the property.

“The objective would not be to retain the property under the agency's ownership indefinitely or to actually operate it as a hotel, it would be to simply hold the property until we can find a qualified buyer who would develop it and operate it in a manner that is compatible with the agency's and community's goals,” said Seely.

Staff is therefore asking the board to consider four options:

– Provide technical assistance and support to the owners in marketing the property to potential buyers who would develop the property in a manner consistent with community's and the Redevelopment Agency's goals.

– Proceed with obtaining Community Development Block Grant authorization to use program income funding to conduct the studies originally authorized under the planning and technical assistance grant, including the use analysis, appraisal and structural evaluation.

– Pursue the purchase of vacant property fronting Country Club Drive in order to provide the current owners with funding necessary for them to be able to retain ownership for a longer period of time until an appropriate buyer is located, and to allow the agency to assume a more influential role with a new property owner on future use of the hotel facility.

– Pursue the Redevelopment Agency's purchase of the property and hold it until an appropriate buyer can be found who will renovate the structure and operate it as a hotel, conference center or mixed-use facility, consistent with the agency's goals.

Other items on Tuesday's agenda include the following.

Timed items:

9 a.m. – Animal Care and Control's presentation of adoptable animals.

9:15 a.m. – Consideration of a recommendation from the Lake County Fish and Wildlife Advisory Committee for the purchase of a custom robotic wildlife mule deer figure in the amount of $2,000 to be used by the California Department of Fish and Game to catch illegal, off-season hunters.

9:30 a.m. – Discussion and consideration of Lakebed Management Program revenue/costs and proposed ordinance establishing annual payments for lakebed encroachment permits and annual lease fees.

10 a.m. – Discussion and consideration of reducing the number of Middletown Area Plan Update Advisory Committee members from 20 to 13, and consideration of appointment to the committee.

10:30 a.m. – Discussion and consideration of a request for authorization to allow representatives of the Two by Two Lake-Yolo Watershed Committee and staff to discuss and negotiate with representatives from the Yolo County Flood and Conservation District for opportunities to secure surface water rights to Clear Lake in connection with the development and construction of the Middle Creek Restoration Project. The board also will consider a request to permit the committee representatives and necessary county staff to travel out of county to meet with the State Water Resources Control Board to discuss a pending application for surface water rights to Clear Lake in connection with the proposed Middle Creek project.

10:45 a.m. – Consideration of applications from members of the public for appointment to miscellaneous Lake County committees, commissions and advisory boards.

11 a.m. – Consideration of proposed guidelines and mini-grant application form for community-based recreational activities and request to authorize the Public Services Department director to advertise and solicit applications for this funding.

1:30 p.m. – Update on the mobile home park owners responses to the proposed rent stability lease agreement and consideration of a proposed ordinance establishing mobile home park space rent stabilization; and discussion/consideration of regulatory alternatives.

11:45 a.m. – Consideration of a proposed agreement between the county and SWCA Environmental Consultants for the preparation of an archaeological resource management report (to evaluate the potential impacts of the development of two private residences on Rattlesnake Island) in the amount of $29,602.

2:30 p.m. – Continued discussion and consideration of a request from Lowell Grant to initiate action to consolidate Lake County's seven school districts into one district and update from the county counsel and county superintendent of schools regarding the consolidation process and options for pursuing consolidation.

Untimed items:

– Update on the emergency action taken by the Lake County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 9, 2008, declaring the continuance of the existing local emergency in regards to the court order issued by the Sacramento Superior Court which prohibits fish stocking by the state Department of Fish and Game in water bodies in Lake County.

– Consideration of approval of findings of fact for the appeal of Milton and Ellen Heath of the Planning Commission's approval of Bonavita Estate (Kurt Steil and Gary Johnson) merger resubdivision to merge and resubdivide two parcels totaling 534 acres into five parcels, a deviation to construct a dead-end road longer than 1,000 feet and use permit for construction of an 11-acre ski lake at 16756 and 17350 Butts Canyon Road, Middletown.

– Consideration of out-of-state travel for programmer/analyst George Spurr to Phoenix, Ariz., from Feb. 9 through 12 to attend a workshop on control language programming.

The board also will hold a closed session for labor negotiations and to conduct a performance evaluation for the county's human resources director, Kathy Ferguson.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

LAKEPORT – The Lakeport City Council faced a quandary at its Jan. 6 meeting over whether or not to add information to its draft general plan which was approved nearly two years ago but inadvertently left out.

Utilities and Community Development Director Mark Brannigan asked the council for direction on what he should do about language that they had directed be added to the plan relating to the 700-acre City of Lakeport Municipal Sewer District (CLMSD) property, which officials have talked about developing into a golf course and subdivision.

The missing language was brought to Brannigan's attention at a Dec. 3 public workshop on the draft general plan and its environmental impact report by Suzanne Lyons, the city's newly elected council member, before she took office.

At that time, Lyons questioned why specific information about how the CLMSD land was to be developed wasn't included in the plan, as Lake County News reported.

Brannigan told the council last Tuesday that, at the December workshop, he didn't know to what documents Lyons was referring.

Following the workshop Lyons met with Brannigan and interim City Manager Kevin Burke. From there, Brannigan, Redevelopment Manager Richard Knoll and Planning Services Manager Andrew Britton started looking for the documents Lyons had remembered existed but weren't reflected in the draft general plan.

It turns out that Lyons – who regularly attended Lakeport City Council meetings for a few years before seeking election – was right, there were such documents.

Brannigan said staff found them and wanted council direction on what to do next.

In 2007 there was a gap in progress on the general plan, the update of which began in 2002, Brannigan explained. He attributed that gap to a "changing of the guard" in city staff.

He provided the council with a time line of actions it had taken in regard to the CLMSD land, plus accompanying documents.

On Feb. 6, 2007, the council approved a motion to refer proposed draft general plan amendments that were prepared by consultant Dale Neiman – at about the time as he was hired as Clearlake's city administrator – and a committee established by the council to negotiate the CLMSD's proposed development.

As Lake County News reported in February of 2007, Neiman was hired the previous fall on a proposed development agreement between the city and Boeger Land Development for the CLMSD property.

He and the committee appointed to negotiate the agreement – which included Jim Burns, a partner in Boeger Land Development, then-Mayor Roy Parmentier and Buzz Bruns, then a councilman – forwarded to the council for its Feb. 6, 2007, meeting a proposal that the property would not be under a “specific plan” but under a “master plan” designation in the general plan.

Neiman told Lake County News at the time that the language change was meant to save time and money for both Boeger and the city by removing the specific plan step from the process. He felt the same ends could be achieved through an environmental impact report and project review process.

Some city staff had been concerned at the time that by removing the specific plan – which is a land use process for developing a specific site – an extra level of public input and involvement also would be removed, and that the land would miss out on being analyzed in a meaningful way.

However, the council, at its meeting on Feb. 6, 2007, forwarded the changes to the Lakeport Planning Commission, with Parmentier directing that it be on their agenda as soon as possible.

Richard Knoll, then the city's Community Development Department director, took the proposed changes to the Planning Commission on March 14, 2007.

City staff recommended that the commission not accept Neiman's proposed language changes “because the city has never done any kind of planning for this piece of property, which is a requirement of the city,” according to minutes from the meeting.

Commissioners at the time also expressed concern over including language in the general plan regarding residential development or a golf course on the property until a plan was completed, suggesting the city “was getting ahead of itself.”

The commission decided to propose that the area be designated “General Plan Area A” rather than the master plan or specific plan options.

On May 14, 2007, the City Council received the commission's suggestions and a public review draft of the general plan update.

The following month, on June 19, 2007, the council approved the commission's recommendations for the CLMSD areas, along with some minor plan element changes. At the same time, the council also approved a proposal from its general plan consultant, Quad Knopf, to work on a new sphere of influence area general plan update, which would be incorporated into the general plan.

Brannigan said last Tuesday that it was on July 11, 2007, that the general plan was put into a “holding pattern.”

According to city documents, at that meeting the council received a staff update which noted the holding pattern was necessary so that the process to develop the sphere of influence section for the general plan could proceed, “and further general plan goals, policies and programs can be prepared and incorporated into the draft general plan and addressed in the environmental impact report (EIR).”

Budget, cease and desist order draw the focus

After that, the city's budget issues began to surface, said Brannigan, and the changes to the plan and the study for the CLSMD property weren't completed.

He said minor modifications to that section in the general plan are now being considered, and the golf course development language could still be included if it didn't impact the draft EIR.

Brannigan also noted that the general plan could later be amended; general plan amendments are allowed four times annually.

He suggested the council could continue without major revisions, which would mean leaving the language that refers to the CLMSD property – which isn't currently included in the city limits – as a specific plan area. Or they could remove the language and change the proposed sphere of influence – areas the city hopes eventually to annex, such as the CLMSD – language to an area of interest.

As it stands, only part of the CLMSD property is included in a prospective sphere of influence mapped out in the plan and illustrated on the map above.

Mayor Ron Bertsch was concerned about the council making changes to the plan now unless it was willing to open it up that consideration to public comment.

Brannigan said the language changes could be added later. He was for keeping the process moving forward, because the plan should already have been completed. “We have some liability to update our general plan.”

Eventually, the city will have to go to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to get formal approval for adding CLMSD into its adjusted sphere of influence, Brannigan explained.

Councilman Bob Rumfelt, who sits on LAFCO, said that LAFCO might question granting the sphere of influence change if the general plan isn't completed, and make the plan's completion a condition of approval.

Lyons asked if there's a date by which the plan has to be completed. Brannigan suggested it might be 2012, but he added that the plan's EIR – completed three to four years ago – is getting to the end of its life expectancy.

“That's another casualty of putting this off is we're going to have to redo the EIR,” he said. “And if we have to redo the EIR we're looking at two to three years, which will put us to 2012.”

Lyons asked if money was budgeted to complete the plan. Brannigan said there is a budget for finishing it, but not for having to do major revisions or a new EIR.

Parmentier appeared frustrated by the situation. “I don't know why we're starting to drag our feet,” he said. “Get off our butts and get something done.”

Councilman Jim Irwin asked him exactly what it was he wanted. Parmentier replied that he wanted to see the language changes inserted but wasn't sure that the city could do it now.

The costs to do the specific plan study are around $150,000, said Brannigan, adding that he didn't think there was a clear understanding of those costs in 2007. He added the city had hoped the proposed golf course developer would help fund it.

City Attorney Steve Brookes offered the council an explanation of why the plan got off track.

“When the cease cease and desist came in, everything went out the window. That's the historical perspective,” he said.

Brookes was referring to the cease and desist order – originally coupled with a hookup moratorium on the city's sewer system – issued against Lakeport by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in January of 2007 in response to a release of treated wastewater the previous spring, as Lake County News has reported.

In order to meet the terms of the state's order, the city had to spend millions of dollars to increase its system capacity, as well as devote large amounts of staff time to the process.

Brookes also noted that the developer, Matt Boeger, had helped fund Neiman's consulting position.

Lyons asked if there was public comment on the situation. Bertsch wouldn't open the discussion to public comment because he said they weren't going to change it the plan's language, a decision which angered audience member Janet Cawn, who wanted to speak to the subject.

Rumfelt made the motion to leave the language as it was, which Parmentier seconded. The vote was 4-1, with Lyons voting no.

Parmentier said that, in his opinion, the bottom line was that all of the CLMSD property should be in the city's sphere of influence. Brannigan said that the sphere of influence language would have to be approved by LAFCO first.

Brannigan said there will be at least two more hearings on the general plan in the months ahead.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:3}