CLEARLAKE – For the third year in a row, the city of Clearlake will distribute candy and treats to local children at City Hall as a safe alternative to trick-or-treating in unknown neighborhoods.

City Council members and staff will decorate City Hall and dress in costume to welcome children.

Every child also will receive a reflective trick or treat bag with an anti-drug message.

This year the city is are asking local businesses to help by donating supplies and treats, if possible.

They are looking for donations of bags of Halloween candy, cookies and/or cupcakes, punch, cups, napkins, etc.

The city is partnering with Konocti Unified School District to announce the event, and several hundred children are expected to attend.

If anyone is interested in helping in our endeavor to provide a safe Halloween for our community's kids, or would like more information, please contact City Clerk Melissa Swanson at Clearlake City Hall, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., telephone 994-8201, Extension 106.

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

LAKE COUNTY – Another proposed ordinance that would control the use of genetically engineered – or GE – crops in Lake County will be considered by the Board of Supervisors later this month.

The new GE ordinance is tentatively scheduled to go before the board at 11 a.m. Tuesday, Oct. 21. The discussion has been rescheduled a few times since it was first placed on the agenda in early October.

Board Chair Ed Robey is taking the proposal to the board. He said it's based on an ordinance that was accepted by the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors in June of 2006.

The biggest difference between the original Santa Cruz ordinance and what Robey is proposing is a provision he's included that allows the Board of Supervisors to grant exceptions to the prohibition against GE crops.

The board, he said, could make a finding that a product meets eight criteria that ensures it isn't going to harm the economy or agriculture.

He used as an example one possibility raised in a May public workshop on genetically engineered agriculture. During that discussion, Dave Rosenthal of Middletown talked about the benefits genetic engineering would have if it could lead to a grape plant that is resistant to Pierce's disease.

Robey said such a genetically engineered crop's benefits would outweigh its negatives, because it would mean pesticide wouldn't have to be sprayed.

At that same May workshop, Robey had samples ordinances from other counties, and also asked scientists and agricultural experts to speak about the crops. Robey said the workshop was meant to be a forum for all arguments – pro and con – to be aired.

Local proponents of keeping GE crops out of Lake County say it could offer a branding opportunity for local agriculture. On the reverse, at the May workshop Supervisor Rob Brown said it was his understanding that in Mendocino County – where a GE moratorium is in effect – crops were not getting higher prices for farmers.

The May workshop featured a sharp division between those advocating for genetic engineering as a beneficial tool for agriculture and those that consider it a major threat to organic agriculture and to the environment.

The Oct. 21 hearing, said Robey, won't be an opportunity to reiterate all of those past issues. “I'm not going to allow it to turn into a rehash of every argument under the sun.”

He added, “The board's got plenty of background information. I think they're thoroughly informed.”

Earlier this year, the Coalition for Responsible Agriculture had taken a new GE ordinance to the county. The same group had sought to have an ordinance passed in 2005 to prohibit the use of Roundup Ready alfalfa for a 30-month period.

However, the effort failed when Supervisors Gary Lewis, Jeff Smith and Rob Brown voted against it that October. Robey and Supervisor Anthony Farrington supported the measure.

In 2007, a federal court re-regulated Roundup Ready alfalfa after a judge found the US Department of Agriculture, which didn't conduct an environmental impact study on the crop, had failed to address concerns that GE alfalfa could contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa. A nationwide planting injunction also was put in place until a study is conducted.

Concerns about GE crops contaminating other crops have arisen based on actual occurrences. The crops have been known to escape test plots and travel many miles, mixing with conventional crops and wild plants.

Such was the case in the southern US in 2006 and 2007, when a type of GE rice was found to have contaminated commercial long-grain rice.

The result was an embargo by the European Union on all US-grown rice – including varieties from California, where no GE rice is grown.

Victoria Brandon, chair of the Sierra Club Lake Group – which is a member group in the Coalition for Responsible Agriculture – indicated her group's support of Robey's proposed ordinance.

The Lake County Farm Bureau hasn't changed its position opposing any such effort to control genetically engineered crops, said Executive Director Chuck March.

In May, about the time of the supervisors' workshop, the local Farm Bureau Board of Directors voted to oppose any local regulation on GE crops, a move which reaffirmed its previous position, said March. The vote was 14 to three.

March said there has been a long discussion about the local Farm Bureau needing to follow the state organization's policy of opposing local regulation. That policy has been created out of concern that a patchwork system of regulation could occur from county to county.

However, March said local Farm Bureaus can opt out of following that state policy if they choose.

The local discussion about GE crops follows Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's signing last month of AB 541, by Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael).

The legislation, signed Sept. 27, was drafted to protect farmers against having their crops cross-contaminated by GE crops, and also guard them against lawsuits from big agritech companies that might try to sue for patent infringement if materials escape.

Huffman's bill was endorsed both by the state Farm Bureau and Sierra Club, as well as the Board of Supervisors, which sent a letter to the state Legislature supporting the bill.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

CLEARLAKE – The Clearlake City Council agreed to further explore establishing a committee to act in an advisory capacity for the city's redevelopment agency.

Clearlake Vision Task Force Steering Committee members Robert Riggs and Jim Scholz took the suggestion to form the committee to the council last month, as Lake County News has reported.

City Administrator Dale Neiman said that, from the staff's perspective, forming the committee is a political decision, so the staff didn't offer a suggestion on how the council should act.

However, Neiman added, “We have an obligation to let you know what the pros and cons are.”

Neiman said that, in his experience, government bodies generally form advisory committees to help reach consensus on a very difficult problem, after which the groups are disbanded.

If eminent domain is included in a redevelopment agency's plan, a project area committee should be formed, said Neiman. The city once had such a committee, but in 1989 six of 11 members of that committee were deemed to have a conflict of interest.

In November of that year, the City Council voted to disband the committee, which agreed to the action. The council then formed an advisory committee, said Neiman. That also later was disbanded.

Neiman said an advisory committee shouldn't participate in issues related to potential litigation, negotiation and approval of loans, or selling property. He said most cities also don't allow advisory committees to make recommendations on budgetary and financial matters.

He suggested that five tasks that would be appropriate for an advisory committee are amending the redevelopment plan, forming economic development strategies, potential uses for project fund bond proceeds, developing first-time homebuyer guidelines and reviewing low-income apartment projects.

Councilman Roy Simons, who had been a member on the city's original project area and redevelopment advisory committees, said legislative bodies rely heavily on committees, and he wanted to see this one formed.

Community members are asking the agency to listen to them, Simons said. “Give this committee a chance.”

Council member Judy Thein said an advisory committee can help stay connected to the community. She asked why Neiman was proposing a more formal advisory committee rather than the more informal approach offered by Riggs and Scholz.

Neiman said he felt they needed to establish membership guidelines and responsibilities if they're going to form the committee.

Clearlake resident Rick Mayo, who said he has been involved with the city's redevelopment effort since the beginning, told the council that people in blighted areas often don't have input on the issue, and so he questioned if redevelopment actually does more harm than good.

“The citizens are aced out of the process. The government decided what it wanted for the town,” said Mayo.

“It has to work for the whole community or it's not going to work for anybody,” he added.

Mayo raised concerns about eminent domain. Because the city's redevelopment agency didn't use eminent domain in its first 12 years, it expired in 2002 and so isn't an issue, said Neiman.

Vice Mayor Chuck Leonard said he has in favor of an advisory committee as long as it doesn't take a lot of city staff time.

Council members offered recommendations about how many members the committee should have, ranging from five up to 12.

“The more people you add the more difficult it is and the more time it takes,” advised Neiman.

Neiman said he's planning to meet with Riggs and Scholz on Friday morning to discuss the committee further.

The council directed staff to bring the discussion back with some additional ideas and suggestions. Mayor Curt Giambruno said he wanted to continue the subject to a meeting when Council member Joyce Overton, who was unable to attend the meeting, would be present to offer her thoughts.

Mayo said he wants to see the city progress, and the advisory committee “is a good start.”

Council approved donating surplus equipment, offers proclamation

Police Chief Allan McClain received the council's approval to surplus outdated radios, scanners, master controllers and a repeater and donate them to the Lake County Office of Emergency Services' Disaster Action Response Team. Several other pieces of surplus equipment will be donated to the California State Firefighter's Association Committee for Volunteers.

In other council business, Giambruno presented Ed Strohmeyer of Strohmeyer's Plumbing with a proclamation of appreciation for the company's work on updating the Austin Park restrooms.

Ilene Dumont of People Services gave an update on the group's remodeling of its Lakeshore Drive building, completed with $139,000 from the city plus $100,000 from the organization. Giambruno thanked her for upgrading the building, which he said had made a difference in that part of town.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

LAKE COUNTY – It's official – Lake County's newly adopted general plan is now in effect.

The plan, approved unanimously by the Board of Supervisors on Sept. 2, became effective on Oct. 2, said Community Development Director Rick Coel.

The plan essentially lays out a vision for how the county will develop over the coming 20 years.

Following its approval by the board, the document went through some final updates by the plan consultant, Rick Rust, Coel explained. Coel planned to have a planning staff workshop with help phase the plan into use, which features new policies that will keep county staff busy.

With the final updates and the document itself in place, the plan can be found on the Lake County government Web site, www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/DepartmentDirectory/Community_Development/2008_General_Plan.htm.

The new Lake County General Plan took six years to complete, longer than originally anticipated, said Coel.

“I didn't expect it was going to take six years,” Coel said.

Supervisor Ed Robey added, “We thought we could do it in three or four,” but noted that some additions – like the agriculture, water resources and geothermal elements, plus updated land use policies – took longer but ultimately will be beneficial to the county.

The effort included hundreds of hours of staff time, along with hundreds of hours Coel – who became community development director in early 2007 – also has put into it.

The monumental process of creating the document included an environmental impact report, addressing public comments on that report, developing new policies to move the county forward, and holding meetings and workshops for both the committees that participated and the general public, said Coel. Then they corresponded with Rick Rust, the county's consultant on the plan, who helped put the document together.

The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission both contributed work to the plan's creation, said Coel.

 

Each member offered something unique. Coel said Supervisor Anthony Farrington focused on water resources, while Robey helped on economic development issues. Supervisors Rob Brown and Denise Rushing offered their own efforts to create an energy policy; Coel said Rushing has suggested forming a commission that will take that work to form a sustainability policy that includes energy and agriculture.

 

From the Planning Commission, which also held public hearings on the plan and certified the environmental impact report, came feedback and assistance. In particular, Coel named Monica Rosenthal and Clelia Baur for digging in and assisting with the certification for the environmental impact report, which is about 400 pages in length.

Besides those county officials, Coel said there were various committees – for housing, agriculture and geothermal elements, among others – that contributed to the effort. He estimated those committees accounted for more than 70 community members who participated in the process.

Then there was community development and planning staff that reviewed different versions of the policies, and groups like the Sierra Club that offered their own input, he said.

“There's just so many people that have done so much to make this such a thorough, concise document,” Coel said.

A notable aspect of the new plan, said Robey, is greater restrictions on residential developments in flood plains.

He said in the past the county has allowed development to push into those areas and, when something goes wrong, community members have looked back at the county to ask why they let it happen.

“We really don't want to do that anymore,” he said.

Coel said, overall, the process was very positive. And, of course, very long.

The length of time it took to complete is due partly to thoroughness, with new aspects to the plan and the inevitable delays in any big project mixed in.

“The delays certainly added value,” Coel said.

Coel said the plan's environmental impact report got behind with the original consulting firm hired to work on the plan. Rick Rust, who was with that firm, then moved on to another employer, and the plan moved with him. Rust has been an excellent resource, said Coel.

Elements for water resources and agriculture were part of the delays, too, said Coel. In the end, however, they were important in creating a truly comprehensive document.

In terms of significant controversy, the main one that arose during the final hearing involved community growth boundaries for Middletown, where an area plan is still under way.

Coel said the controversy arose as a direct result of his position on the boundary, which Coel wanted to keep at its current size, which was established in 1989.

The Middletown Area Plan Committee, however, voted that they wanted to make it larger by a few hundred acres, and community members spoke out on the issue at length on Sept. 2.

Robey said the disparity in boundaries arose because several large landowners wanted their property to be included inside that growth boundary moving forward.

Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors decided to accept the plan with the 1989 boundaries, and directed that the area plan committee work to resolve the issue as part of the Middletown Area Plan update, which ultimately will link with the county general plan.

Coel said the disagreements can be worked out through the area plan update process.

Area plans like Middletown's are important aspects of the county's overall planning process, said Coel. The new general plan should dial in well with the existing plans, he said, which is important.

“It has to correlate or else we're going to have problems,” he said.

The various plans seek to protect local resources and address specific concerns, said Coel, setting design review guidelines, considering ridgeline development, scenic corridors and development along the lakeside.

Issues related to development can be constantly shifting, with new concerns arising. Recent hot buttons have included carports, signage and animals in residential zoning districts, he said.

Besides the Middletown plan, there the Shoreline Area Plan, which stretched along the Northshore. That plan also is pending, and is currently the highest in priority. Coel said a few meeting of the committee are left before the plan should be ready for consideration by county officials.

Next in priority is the Middletown plan, along with updates of the county's zoning ordinance, said Coel.

Coel anticipates the zoning ordinance updates, which should take about a year, will be started by winter. An advisory committee has been assembled to review it.

The Lakeport area plan needs some work as well. The plan has issues including too much density in some areas, such as along the west side of Lakeshore Boulevard, where there are steep hills and serpentine soils.

The Board of Supervisors must give approval to start that plan, which Coel hopes will get under way next year.

In terms of continuity between the old and new plans, how it will impact projects is fairly straightforward. Coel said that, for applicants with development projects that are pending, as long as their application has been deemed complete, they fall under the rules of the old plan. The new document applies to every project that isn't complete or not yet submitted.

Robey commended Coel and all of his staff for the work they put in on the document.

He said the general plan update process – which has spanned across half of his tenure on the board – was a long haul and, at times, proved very frustrating.

“But we did it,” he said.

For Coel, finishing the general plan update is a once-in-a-career mountain to climb.

His young son, who just started kindergarten, should be out of college by the time another plan needs to be drafted.

“I definitely plan to be retired by then,” said Coel.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

SPRING VALLEY – The Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to adopt an urgency ordinance that will continue a connection moratorium to Spring Valley's water system and keep water conservation restrictions in place.

The new ordinance – which succeeds an ordinance passed by the board in September 2006 – will be in effect for 45 days and then must return to the board, which must consider whether or not to extend it for as long as two years, according to County Counsel Anita Grant.

The board met at the Spring Valley Community Center for the discussion and vote, which was held over from Sept. 23. About 100 people attended the meeting.

However, the board decided to delay a decision on the cost of service rate study looking at water rates and operation in Spring Valley's County Service Area No. 2.

For more than two and a half hours the board took public comment and discussed the water system's capacity, which proved to be a divisive issue.

The need to continue the moratorium limiting hookups to the water system was emphasized in a letter from the California Department of Public Health to Special District Administrator Mark Dellinger.

In that letter, Bruce Burton, engineer for the Mendocino District based in Santa Rosa, said that according to Public Health's assessment, Spring Valley's maximum daily demand is 461,000 gallons. Burton said the agency concluded that the district suffers from an 81,000-gallon-per-day source deficiency and lacks 121,000 gallons per day in storage capacity.

Based on that assessment, Burton said the department "continues to strongly recommend that the connection moratorium in the initial emergency ordinance be kept in place until additional source capacity is obtained for the system, or until five years of production data is available that shows a sustainable decrease in system demands without the presence of surcharges."

The surcharges referred to in Burton's letter are based on usage and, according to Dellinger, act as a kind of forced conservation measure.

Supervisor Denise Rushing asked Dellinger about the potential ramifications if the board didn't take Burton's advice and continue the connection moratorium.

"I think if there is no conservation that there is a chance that we're going to run into more problems supplying water in this system that we have," said Dellinger.

Several community members who spoke claimed that Spring Valley residents were facing potentially huge rate increases based on the information in the rate study, and also alleged that millions of gallons of water were being lost due to leaks.

Supervisor Rob Brown said those allegations have been made before and have been proved to be inaccurate, and he asked Dellinger to respond.

Dellinger said that, based on average water consumption in the valley outlined in the cost of service rate study, over five years the monthly bill could climb to about $122. It was noted later in the meeting that monthly bills currently run around $39.50 for average use.

But that $122 number looks at the entire system's infrastructure needs, said Dellinger, rather than just the basic fixes to justify getting rid of the surcharges and increasing capacity. It's a large number because system maintenance has been deferred a long time in Spring Valley, he explained.

"For so long maintenance has been deferred in all the systems we manage," Dellinger said.

But taking on all of the system's challenges "doesn't look like it's going to work," Dellinger said, and could end up costing more than the system's customers can afford.

Addressing issues of leakages, Dellinger said it hasn't been a matter of losing millions of gallons of water, but rather an old billing system that was dropping zeros and not properly billing customers for usage.

While parts of the aging system do suffer from leaks, Dellinger said Special Districts staff has attempted to respond and repair those as quickly as possible. The system's clear well has a small leak this is due to be repaired, he added, but tests have found that, overall, the system is doing fairly well considering its age, materials and construction techniques.

Spring Valley resident Cathy Jones accused Special Districts of "pitiful business practices" in terms of billing and "revolving door excuses" in responding to residents' concerns. She said another "unwarranted ordinance" such as that before the board could cause financial hardships.

Jones added that she believes Special Districts is creating a "money pit" for many consultants and studies.

"It is not our responsibility to fund the needs of future development," she said.

Maximum daily usage for the valley's water users was an issue of repeated concern. Jim Fluker was one of several people who addressed that issue. Fluker said customers aren't properly billed and meters not properly read, which he suggested was part of arriving at faulty capacity numbers.

Valley resident David Jones offered the board his own research on the system's capacity and usage, explaining that a new billing system and water meters are doing a better job of accounting for the system's water.

He said in 2006 the system only used 45 percent of its capacity. "We have the capacity," he insisted. "We're not using half of what we can produce now."

Jones said the aim of the prior urgency ordinance didn't need to be continued with a new one. He said a flawed study suggested the valley's residents used 1,000 gallons of water per day per household, which he said his research doesn't support.

Brown asked Dellinger about the potential consequences of lifting the ordinance.

Dellinger said he expected the state to impose its own connection moratorium. "They will do that instantly, I'm certain of that."

Florence Kinder said she was in favor of the moratorium because she was afraid that if it were lifted more people would move into the area and tax the system. Why wait until things break to fix them?Kinder asked.

"We don't want to do it that way anymore," said Board Chair Ed Robey.

In the most contentious portion of the meeting, resident Don Scott accused the board of taking illegal action. He claimed the water district is a nonprofit required to provide water to customers at cost, and couldn't institute any other measures.

Grant said water and government code gives the county the jurisdiction to set limits on wateruses for a described period of time until a health and emergency situation ceases to exist.

Rushing said the board isn't interested in raising rates on citizens for the purpose of expansion, and that there's a difference between capital improvement and maintenance. Existing ratepayers need to pay to fix the current system, she said.

Dellinger himself came under attack from several community members at the meeting. However, one longtime valley resident, Ernie Lahti, said Dellinger was doing an excellent job.

"You can see how divisive this community is," he said.

Brown also defended Dellinger. "I have nothing but support and confidence in the information that Mark has given us. There have been a lot of allegations here, and it's ridiculous, in my opinion."

He said there's no motivation for Dellinger or anyone else to intentionally offer inaccurate information about the system. Many of those making the allegations have been given the correct answers time and again and have chosen not to listen, Brown said.

Brown added that he doesn't see anything productive coming from the personal attacks. "We have more issues with this community than every other water district combined."

Rushing moved the urgency ordinance, which was accepted 4-0, with Supervisor Anthony Farrington absent.

The rate study will be reconsidered at another time, Robey said.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

THIS STORY HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH A NEW LOCATION FOR THE THURSDAY BUDGET WORKSHOP.

 

CLEARLAKE – Now that the state budget has been adopted, the Clearlake City Council and Redevelopment Agency will start work on the city's budget.

Two city budget workshops are scheduled for this week, along with a regular City Council meeting on Thursday.

The first workshop will be held on Thursday, beginning at 9 a.m., at the Highlands Senior Center, 3245 Bowers Road. The second study session will be held at 1 p.m. Friday at Clearlake City Hall, 14050 Olympic Drive.

On Thursday, the City Council will meet in a regular session beginning at 6 p.m., following a 5:30 p.m. closed session item for conference with a real property negotiator regarding leasing office space at the Austin Resort property at 14057 Lakeshore Drive, Clearlake.

Agenda items include a proclamation of appreciation to Strohmeyer’s Plumbing for their work on upgrading the Austin Park restrooms and a presentation by Ilene Dumont of People Services Inc. on the remodel of their building on Lakeshore Drive.

Under business, the council will consider establishing an advisory committee for the Redevelopment Agency and also look at surplusing and donating outdated equipment.

The meeting will be broadcast live on the PEG Channel, TV Channel 8.

{mos_sb_discuss:2}