The Steelhead Drive neighborhood, bottom of picture, is located across from the Van Ecks' property (surrounding pond). The issues of noise, traffic and zoning all are playing parts in the dispute over the project. Photo courtesy of Jim Clement.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN UPDATED, WITH CLARIFICATIONS ON COMMISSIONER ROSENTHAL'S VOTE. 

LAKEPORT – The problems with outdated zoning – particularly locating residential properties next to agriculturally zoned lands – is at the crux of a Kelseyville project that neighbors are appealing to the Board of Supervisors. {sidebar id=69}

John and Joanne Van Eck's planned riding academy at their Steelhead Drive property is set to go before the Board of Supervisors at the Tuesday, May 13 meeting.

On Feb. 28, after three public hearings amounting to eight hours of public input and commission discussion, the Lake County Planning Commission approved a minor use permit for the Van Eck's project.

Commissioners Monica Rosenthal and Clelia Baur were the dissenters in the 3-2 vote.

Rosenthal cited several reasons for her vote, among them her belief that the project should have a major use permit, with certain mitigation measures. The Van Ecks currently host three special nonprofit events a year, the same number that would be allowed under a minor use permit. Rosenthal didn't believe that was a realistic number, considering the number of groups they've supported in the past and might in the future with the riding academy's addition.

She also was concerned about the clubhouse having a minor use permit, which can only be approved, according to county ordinance, if it is not “detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood.” Based on the neighbors' testimony, Rosenthal believed they would be impacted in such a way that would make the permit inappropriate.

Baur also said she had issues with the project in its entirety.

Within days of the approval Steelhead resident Jim Clement filed the paperwork to send the matter to the Board of Supervisors for an appeal. Clement said he's not trying to be a bad neighbor, but he hasn't been able to overcome his concerns about the project and its impact on the neighborhood.

The project includes a 14,000-square-foot riding arena, a commercial stable, riding academy and a 2,276-square-foot clubhouse facility with a 2,200-square-foot open air, walled garden, according to Planning Department documents.

The Van Ecks say the project on their 76-acre property will serve 15 riding students, primarily children with disabilities. The minor use permit the Planning Commission granted them allows the ranch to host three special nonprofit events annually.

Clouding the issue of the project's worthiness are bad feelings, a previous lawsuit by the Van Ecks against the neighborhood water district and the neighbors' sense that the Van Ecks, ultimately, want to have a major events center at their ranch.

But planning officials and commissioners believe the primary issue appears to be a holdover from decades-old planning – the fact that the small subdivision along Steelhead Drive, and across from the Van Eck property – is residential and conflicts in many ways with the nearby agricultural zoning.

That was a point made by Rosenthal at the Feb. 28 Planning Commission meeting. Rosenthal, who lauded the Van Ecks for working to make agriculture productive, nevertheless cautioned, “It's very problematic for agriculture to abut suburban zoning.”

John Van Eck declined comment for this story, saying he wished to make his case before the board.

The project itself has been under intense scrutiny since public hearings began on it last summer. At the February hearing planners had placed on the agenda revocation of the Van Ecks' three farmworker housing units, including one duplex and one small unit that is actually a hardship residence for Joanne Van Eck's elderly mother.

Community Development Director Rick Coel said his department had difficulty ascertaining if the amount of agricultural activity on the land justified the housing, a concern he said the Van Ecks dispelled when they provided more information about their cattle, fish farming, horses and other operations.

Coel called sorting out the project “a real challenge.”

He told Lake County News that his department was looking at the project closely in order to take care of any outstanding issues and “get back to the merits of the use permit application.” Coel added that the Van Ecks have sought permits for all the buildings they've constructed on the property.

Questions have still remained, such as that posed by Planning Commissioner Clelia Baur at the Feb. 28 hearing, when she asked Coel if the duplex building format qualified for farm labor housing.

“That's been a difference of interpretation,” said Coel. “The way I interpret the zoning ordinance, no.”

Coel was put in what he called the “uncomfortable” position of answering the questions. The county's previous Community Development director, Mary Jane Fagalde, under whose tenure many of the Van Ecks' original permits were approved, is now representing the couple on the project, and argued their case before the commission.

In making his response to Baur's question Coel explained that the county issued, inspected and finalized the permits. “Whether that decision was correct or not I don't think is necessarily the point now.

“If it was a mistake, shame on us for making a mistake,” he said. “In the future I can assure you that is not the interpretation of the department.

Coel added that the county's zoning ordinance “definitely needs an overhaul.”

Fagalde said there has never been this much scrutiny on farm labor quarters in the county over the past 15 years.

She referred to a letter from Agriculture Commissioner Steve Hajik that said the Van Ecks' agricultural use qualified them for the housing.

The Van Ecks also have a small parcel of walnuts, 40 acres of hay which has been too wet to harvest over the last few years and plans for planting grapes, said Fagalde. At the time she said there were 25 head of cattle on the land.

Clement, who has been an outspoken critic of the plan, told the commissioners, “You don't have to live with it, we have to live with it.”

Neighbor Debbie Majestic said she was concerned about Fagalde's part in approving the farm labor duplex and the covered arena, especially since Fagalde was representing the Van Ecks' project.

“That was a little personal,” Fagalde responded, saying she has administered more than 15,000 building permits and finalized thousands of permits during her years as a building official. She added that she did not approve the project's zoning permits.

At the February hearing representatives of local nonprofits including Peoples Services, Hospice Services of Lake County and Lake Family Resource Center – on the board of which Joanne Van Eck is a member – came to speak on behalf of the couples' generosity and their plans.

During the February hearing neighbors raised concerns over roads and traffic, and stated their belief – based on statements they attributed to John Van Eck – that he planned to eventually seek a major use permit to make the property a events center.

“Put everything together. It doesn't match up,” said Majestic. “That's why we're concerned. It doesn't match up. The big picture doesn't fit.”

Majestic pointed to the original, much larger plans, which included a wine cave in the clubhouse.

Joanne Van Eck said that she's gone to the county with every idea she's had, and has tried to follow the rules. Her agricultural business, she said, is her right, but she was upset that her neighbors hadn't brought their concerns directly to her. “I can't believe they're saying the things they're saying about us.”

Her goal is to have a safe place for children to come and enjoy riding and driving horses. “The motive I have right now is that handicapped kids are going to be using my facility for free.”

She said in trying to achieve that goal she has been hit with red tags and stop work orders but no violations.

“I love cows, and I love horses, and I'd love to help kids and nonprofits,” she said.

Lakeport resident Melissa Fulton told the commission, “When you buy property you don't necessarily choose your neighbors.”

She suggested the neighbors should sit down and talk, because the project was a good one. The county, said Fulton, needs a good equestrian facility.

Coel said his staff had a central concern – the commercial kitchen in the clubhouse. “I am torn on that issue.”

Rosenthal suggested that the clubhouse would be underutilized on a minor use permit, because it would only be allowed three events a year. “It would be a shame to not do more.”

Swetnam said in making his decision he needed evidence that there were problems with the project. He said only one official complaint had been made by neighbors, and it was determined to be unfounded.

“There's nothing before me right now that I can hang my hat on that I can justify turning them down,” he said.

Coel's report to the board for Tuesday suggests Clement's appeal be turned down.

In a letter submitted to the board late last week, Clement urged the supervisors to vote in favor of his appeal, citing the project's close proximity to the high-density residential neighborhood.

Neighbors are concerned about noise levels and traffic on the narrow, dead-end street, said Clement, as well as possible impact on Cole Creek and the nearby Clear Lake State Park.

“We are adamantly opposed to the clubhouse in this Minor Use Permit,” Clement wrote. “Originally the clubhouse use was restricted to activities related to the riding academy and the 3 permitted special events. This restriction was deleted from the Minor Use Permit at the February Planning Commission meeting. The clubhouse can now be used an unlimited amount of times with no restrictions on the type of activity. We are extremely concerned about the lack of restrictions on the clubhouse in the revised minor use permit.”

Clement also questioned the actual agricultural use the Van Ecks say is taking place on the land. “We have no problem with the proper agricultural use of the property. We agree that this is the owner’s right. We have, however, seen little agricultural use.”

The issue will be discussed beginning at 9:15 a.m. at the Tuesday board meeting.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

From left, Supervisor Rob Brown presents the proclamation on May 6 to Frank Parker and Rich Feiro of the United Veterans Council. Photo by Ginny Craven.

LAKE COUNTY – Last Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors made a proclamation designating May as National Military Appreciation Month in Lake County.

During the board's afternoon session on May 6, Supervisor Rob Brown read and presented the proclamation to Rich Feiro and Frank Parker of the United Veterans Council.

Parker and Feiro thanked the board for the honor, with Parker adding additional thanks to local veterans – many of whom were in attendance for the proclamation reading – for their service and to the community.

The proclamation reads as follows:

Proclamation designating the Month of May 2008 as

National Military Appreciation Month in Lake County

Whereas, the freedom and security enjoyed by Americans are the director result of the sacrifice and continued vigilance by the United States Armed Forces; and

Whereas, the sacrifices of such members of the United States Armed Forces and of the family members who support them, have preserved the liberties and enrich this nation, making it unique in the world community, and

Whereas, in 2008, the United States Congress passed a resolution proclaiming May as National Military Appreciation Month, calling all Americans to remember those who have given their lives in defense of freedom and to honor the men and women of our Armed Services who have served and continue to serve our Country, together with their families; and

Whereas, during the months of May and June, we also celebrate Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Military Spouse Day, Loyalty Day, Armed Forces Day and Week, Memorial Day, Navy Day, Army Day and Flay Day.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Lake does hereby designate the month of May 2008, as NATIONAL MILITARY APPRECIATION MONTH IN LAKE COUNTY, and calls upon all citizens to show their gratitude and appreciation for our Military Personnel by the appropriate display of flags and ribbons.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4^th day of May, 2008.

ATTEST: KELLY F. COX

County of Lake

Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Mireya Turner

Ed Robey, Chair, Board of Supervisors

Local veterans gathered at the courthouse for the proclamation presentation. Photo by Ginny Craven.

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

South county native James Comstock hopes to win the race to succeed Supervisor Ed Robey in representing District 1. Courtesy photo.

Editor's note: Last August, Lake County News published profiles of candidates for the District 1 supervisorial race in its earliest stages. As the June 3 primary approaches, we're offering several profiles on candidates not originally featured in that early field of contenders. For the earlier articles, click on District 1 Supervisor candidates share goals, experience and District 1 Supervisor candidates: Dornbush, MacIntyre to run.

MIDDLETOWN – James Comstock has spent the better part of his life in Lake County, a place he loves and now wants to help shape as a member of the Board of Supervisors. {sidebar id=68}

In 1942 Comstock's parents came to Lake County. Comstock, 58, was born and raised here, and he and wife Colleen have raised their four children in the county.

“I actually still live on the same ranch in the same house I was born and raised in,” he said.

The family ranch is a 1,700-acre spread that he owns jointly with his two sisters.

A Vietnam veteran who served in the U.S. Navy, it was only for the four years he spent in the service and his time at Santa Rosa Junior College that he left the county.

Since coming home to stay, he's worked in retail, industrial chemical sales and, most recently, the financial business, besides ranching the whole time.

In the middle of his fifth term on the Middletown Unified School District board, Comstock decided it was time to throw his hat into the race for District 1 supervisor.

Incumbent Ed Robey is retiring from the board at year's end, which has opened up a big field of supervisor hopefuls, Comstock among them.

“I decided to jump into the race because of my love for Lake County and my concern for the things that are and aren't happening here,” he said. “My No. 1 issue is we are exporting our kids.”

That ties directly to his second issue – the need for local business to provide jobs to residents as well as goods and services to the county's citizens.

Too much of Lake County's sales tax is left in Sonoma County, said Comstock. “We don't benefit one whit as a county from that.”

The trick is to balance the county's rural lifestyle – we don't want to look like Santa Rosa or Napa, he said – with a truly business-friendly environment that can develop jobs and tax revenue.

That can be accomplished, said Comstock, through careful planning and zoning, which will identify areas where business parks can be located.

Now is an excellent time to take on that task, since the county is in the middle of updating its general plan, he said.

“I believe the community boundaries need to be large enough to accommodate the reasonable and expected growth for 15 to 20 years,” he said.

By making boundaries large enough, an area can avoid sprawl – including mile after mile of strip malls and hodge-podge planning, Comstock suggested.

He points to Salem, Ore., where one of his sons lives and works. The city has a beautiful downtown, but by keeping the boundaries closed it gave rise to extraordinary sprawl. “It's a perfect example of what we do not want to do.”

Finding the right place for businesses will require providing the necessary infrastructure – roads, sewer and water, said Comstock.

There are solutions to the county's infrastructure needs, he said. While benefit – or assessment – zones to fix roads do work, he's not a particular fan of them because they require more affluent communities to pay the extra taxes.

“What I think we need to do is look very, very carefully at our budget,” he said.

That includes finding ways to save money, while putting the focus on road repair. “For us to just say we don't have enough money to fix them is not acceptable,” he said.

On the issue of water, Comstock said areas like Hidden Valley Lake are doing well, while Lower Lake is struggling, and needs additional water sources. The town's water scarcity is affecting its ability to host business; Comstock pointed to an area zoned for a 100-acre business park off Clayton Creek Road, yet there is not enough water to supply it.

One solution is to get control of the county's water back from Yolo County, but that won't be easy. Comstock said he supports continuing to work with Yolo County on an amicable solution.

One way to help prepare young people for the jobs that could be created locally is to get them the right education. Comstock said college isn't in the cards for every student, but ROP programs can give them job skills. He pointed to Lower Lake High School, where a class is constructing a home in cooperation with Habitat for Humanity.

He suggested that, on a local level, the county, cities and school districts can lobby the state legislature to continue to fund ROP programs in spite of proposed budget cuts.

Regarding issues like the foreclosure crisis, which is growing in Lake County, Comstock said, “The solution is too big for local government.”

The county needs to be sure it is assessing properties at the right value in order to not put additional burdens on homeowners in the middle of what he called a “nationwide disaster.”

“I don't know that I've ever seen anything like this,” he said of the foreclosure crisis in its local form.

From 1989 to 1991 was the last major downturn, he said, which wouldn't hold a candle to what's going on now.

So, why is he the best choice for supervisor?

Comstock points to his lifetime of experience living in Lake County, his record of local service – including 18 years on the school board where he's worked with budgets and administration – and extensive service on the area plan committee. He said he's the only candidate with all of that experience to recommend him.

How is he different from Robey?

Comstock said he's much more conservative than Robey, who he said he knows and likes.

Calling himself a “serious fiscal conservative,” Comstock points to one issue on which he and Robey differed dramatically.

A few years back, Robey had suggested a “timeout” on development applications because the result was projects being approved in areas where the new general plan likely would change zoning.

Robey's timeout suggestion didn't pass, but it resulted in an explosion of applications, said Comstock. The ultimate result could have been skyrocketing property prices.

Comstock said many people come to Lake County and then have the attitude that they don't want others coming here.

But a growing population is unavoidable in Lake, as the state's population continues to swell. Comstock pointed to Census statistics, which show a 13.1-percent increase in the county's population between 2000 and 2006, nearly double the 7.6-percent statewide growth rate.

“We need to plan and direct where we want the growth to go to maintain the rural atmosphere that we love,” he said.

With a field of six candidates, Comstock believes the race for District 1 supervisor likely will continue past the June 3 primary and last until the final election in November, although he said he would be pleasantly surprised if he could get the 51-percent majority needed to take an early victory.

He said his candidacy has received a lot of positive attention.

“People have been interested in what I've had to say and the vast, vast majority have been encouraging and supportive,” he said.

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 meeting will begin at 6 p.m. in the council chambers at Clearlake City Hall, 14050 Olympic Drive.

Terri Persons of the Lake County/City Area Planning Council will give a presentation to the council on the Regional Blueprint Planning Program.

Persons, who gave the same presentation to the Board of Supervisors and Lakeport City Council on Tuesday, said the program is supported by a state grant, and assists cities and counties in planning for the future.

The program takes data about an area and provides a visual decision-making tool that shows how planning decisions will impact an area in the decades to come, Persons told the Lakeport City Council Tuesday evening.

The council meeting will include a public hearing to consider transferring program income funds from the economic development revolving loan funds to the housing rehabilitation revolving loan funds.

Several assessment cases are due to be considered by the council Thursday. Three of the cases involve confirming assessments or administrative penalties. In the fourth case, the council will consider abating Robert Rodriguez's property at 13351 Country Club Drive.

Also going before the council Tuesday is a presentation by Pomo Elementary School's "Perfect Clearlake" Gifted and Talented Education group.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

The workshop, scheduled by Board Chair Ed Robey, originally was planned to last two hours. However, it lasted more than three hours as the board heard from agricultural experts, farmers, activists and residents, each with a different perspective on the role biotech should play here in Lake County.

"We're not here to vote on an ordinance," Robey told the large audience. "We're not here to make some kind of final decision."

He recalled an ordinance that came before the board in the fall of 2005 that focused on a temporary moratorium on Roundup Ready alfalfa. The board voted that ordinance down 3-2, with Robey and Supervisor Anthony Farrington voting for it.

A lot has happened since 2005, said Robey. Last year, Roundup Ready alfalfa was hit with a permanent injunction by a federal judge, who re-regulated the crop and ordered that the US Department of Agriculture must complete a full environmental study on it.

Since the 2005 discussion Santa Cruz County accepted its on regulations on biotech crops. Robey said the Santa Cruz ordinance was based on a report by a public health commission subcommittee.

The Coalition for Responsible Agriculture, which had authored the 2005 ordinance proposed for Lake County, had brought back a new one, said Robey. But that particular ordinance wasn't specifically being considered Tuesday.

"I thought it would be wiser to have a discussion in the form of a talk about these things and decide if we wanted to pursue an ordinance or some other process, and that's why we're here today," Robey said.

The board heard from several biotech experts, including Dr. Peggy Lemaux, a University of California Cooperative Extension specialist based at UC Berkeley, who explained how new plant varieties are created or old varieties are changed.

"For a long time we've been modifying crop plants," she said. "Really, everything is genetically modified.”

Lemaux, who works with cereal crops, explained that the genetic information in a wheat plant exceeds that found in human DNA – amounting to the equivalent of 1.7 million pages or 1,700 books.

She compared genetic engineering in a plant to cutting and pasting a page out of one part of a document and into another.

"A large percentage of acreage in the US is genetically engineered," said Lemaux,, adding that 75 percent of processed foods contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Robey asked Lemaux, and other experts who would testify, if they received money from companies like Monsanto. Lemaux said she took no monies from those companies.

Dr. Kent Bradford of UC Davis's Seed Biotechnology Center said there already is a lot of expertise that can result in crops coexisting without legislation or penalties. US law requires that seeds be properly labeled.

In response to Robey's question about funding, Bradford said the center receive funding from all seed companies through an advisory board.

Robert Leavitt of the California Department of Food and Agriculture explained his part in working with a US Department of Agriculture pilot program that involved states in biotech field testing trials.

Leavitt said he and other CDFA staffers have been trained and have taken part in inspecting those field trials, which must be permitted.

Biotech crops have been on the landscape for more than 20 years, said Leavitt.

Community members offer differing viewpoints

Much of the afternoon was taken up with public testimony offered by people from all parts of the spectrum.

Sarah Ryan of the Coalition for Responsible Agriculture read a list of decisions and reports that documented concerns about biotech crops, regulatory oversight and impacts on the environment – including more pesticide use.

"Genetically engineered agriculture's track record speaks for itself," said Ryan.

Even with controls in place, biotech crops can't really be controlled, Ryan said. That's given rise to groups like the Wine Institute, National Farmers Union, California Rice Commission and American Rice Federation adopted stances against genetically engineered crops.

Supervisor Rob Brown asked Ryan if any crops grown locally – such as pears or winegrapes – were at risk due to the introduction of biotech. Ryan said there already had been a small acreage of biotech corn brought here, but there were no biotech versions of the area's major crops. Brown said he wanted to know if any farmers had been directly hurt by biotech traits.

Broc Zoller, who grows winegrapes, pears and walnuts, told the board, "I don't know why we need an ordinance, to be honest with you."

Genetic engineering of crops offers answers to resource scarcity, said Zoller, including crops that are drought-resistant and use less nitrogen. "Why are we going to deny ourselves this progress?"

Paul Frey of Frey Vineyards in Mendocino County said his family-owned winery buys grapes from local growers. He pointed to concerns over genetically modified yeasts that are now being used in winemaking and possibly contaminate neighboring wineries and winegrapes.

Monte Black, a small micro-organic grape grower in Konocti Bay, said if his crops are contaminated by traces of biotech crops, he could lose his contracts. Black suggested the county may start to see many smaller growers, and more grain crops could be introduced, which would be susceptible to biotech versions.

Middletown winegrape grower Dave Rosenthal asserted a biotech ban – which he saw as a moral issue – wouldn't help the county. Rosenthal said he could see biotech benefiting winegrapes by making them resistant to Pierce's disease, which can devastate grapes.

Anderson Valley organic farmer Doug Mosel coordinated Mendocino County's successful campaign to pass a voter-approved initiative to become a GE-free zone in 2004 He said the scientists who spoke earlier in the meeting may have left people with the impression that biotech crops are benign.

However, US regulatory agencies depend on companies that hold patents to provide research on the crops, with records about the crops or the field test sites not open to the public, so it's hard to know just how damaging the crops could be, said Mosel.

"The opportunity you have is to preserve the agricultural integrity in this county,” he said.

Brown asked him about an economic study on the benefit to Mendocino County of being a GE-free zone. Mosel said he didn't believe such a study had been done.

Michelle Scully said the discussion seemed to have at its core the "glaring assumption" that conventional agriculture supported mutant plant strains, when the truth is they were hardworking people trying to produce good crops. She suggested a more collaborative approach.

"I don't like the divisiveness of this," said Scully, suggesting it didn't represent the community well.

Following a 40-minute break to allow for another agenda item to be heard, the hearing resumed, with Sierra Club Lake Group Chair Victoria Brandon focused on a topic she didn't feel had been considered – that of unintended consequences.

Biotech crops that target certain insects actually can hurt beneficial insects as well, she said.

She pointed to the example of corn that is tolerant to the organic compound Bacillus thuringiensis. The pollen blows around and hits other plants like milkweed, which is fed on by monarch butterflies.

The result, she said, has been a butterfly die-off. "Nobody wanted that. Nobody intended that."

Lake County Farm Bureau Executive Director Chuck March told the supervisors that his board of directors had opposed the 2005 ordinance, and remained steadfast in opposing any local biotech regulations.

March said regulations should be consistent at all levels of government.

He argued that Lake County growers could be placed in a competitive disadvantage if a biotech ordinance was passed. March added that 12 million farmers in 23 countries around the world currently grow nearly 300 million acres of biotech crops. He said the crops can help save water and air quality.

Coexistence among conventional and biotech crops is dependent upon planning and communication with neighbors, he said.

The Lake County Farm Bureau, he added, was not promoting the use of genetically engineered products, but merely asking that they remain on a level playing field.

He quoted a letter Agriculture Commissioner Steve Hajik sent to Robey voice his concerns over enforcement of an anti-GE ordinance.

March asked the board to endorse AB 541, a bill working its way through the state legislature which offers farmers protections against liability in cases where biotech crops spread to their acreage.

Steve Elias, who helped draft the Coalition for Responsible Agriculture's proposed ordinance, asked the board to adopt an ordinance in order to give Lake County a GE-free brand.

"You can have that now, but you can't have it later," he said. "Once it's in here, it's in here for good."

Board largely split on issue

Supervisor Denise Rushing said the biotech issue, which arose in 2005, was a key reason for her running for office. She said she believed erring on the side of caution was important.

Rushing, who has a science background, said she's familiar with how technology companies can behave, and said they can't be expected to self-regulate when huge profits are at stake.

"I believe we're truly at risk in society with the mass-produced food system," which has resulted in loss of biodiversity and self-determination, said Rushing.

She supported having the board consider an ordinance to regulate biotech.

Brown, however, said he didn't share her concerns.

Bigger issues for farming, he said, were economics that made a pear produced in Chile cheaper to buy in a local supermarket than locally produced pears.

Supervisor Jeff Smith said he found the discussion valuable and educational, but added that he didn't believe an ordinance against biotech crops was the right thing to do.

"To me the jury's really still out as to what we should do on this," he said.

Noting that the Tuesday discussion was more congenial than those in 2005, Farrington said he was open to further dialog and gathering more information.

Robey agreed. "This discussion isn't over."

The board did agree to take action on one item – a suggestion by Brown to send the legislature a letter supporting AB 541.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:3}

Marc Spillman and Thomas Gayner were chosen to fill two positions on the commission. Spillman, who currently serves on the commission, was seeking reappointment at the end of his term. Commissioner Walter Schlicher's term also is ending but he announced his plans to retire.

Also seeking a seat was Dennis Rollins, who previously had served 12 years on the commission.

Each of the three applicants gave presentations, beginning with Gayner, a contractor who retired from the military 11 year ago after two decades of service. He's lived in Lakeport for nine years.

"We're going to need some good insight from the Planning Commission in the next few years," he said.

Gayner said the city needs to start looking at ways to improve and expand in order to serve retiring baby boomers who are heading here.

In his application to the council Gayner said he realized Lakeport's growth potential, and said his experience as a contractor has given him an understanding of how contractors and homeowners who go before the commission might view situations. He added that the military taught him how to work within a bureaucratic system.

Mayor Buzz Bruns asked Gayner his opinion of redevelopment. Gayner said he liked the idea of redevelopment, and said the city's downtown needed to be redeveloped so that "businesses come in, prosper and stay."

Councilman Roy Parmentier asked him what Gayner thought of eminent domain in connection to redevelopment. Gayner suggested that compromises should be pursued before resulting to taking property through eminent domain.

Spillman, who is just completing his first term on the commission, said he had enjoyed his time on the commission and General Plan Advisory Committee, and asked for reappointment.

Councilman Jim Irwin asked Spillman what he would like to see changed regarding the Planning Commission and its direction.

Spillman suggested that he would like to see the council and the commission meet on a regular basis in order to stay on the "same page," and suggested that more interaction between the two bodies would be beneficial.

Rollins is a longtime Lakeport resident who previously spent a dozen years on the Planning Commission, as well as two years on the General Plan Advisory Committee and four and a half years on the Lakeport Unified School District board.

He joked that he hoped the council didn't hold it against him that while he was on the school board they didn't agree to sell the city the Natural High School property on the lakeshore.

Rollins said he had really enjoyed his time on the commission and hoped to return. He described himself as being diligent in gathering information and open-minded when making decisions.

Bruns also asked Rollins about his opinion on redevelopment, and Rollins replied that he supported it, and thought the downtown updates were moving in a positive direction. Making the city more pedestrian friendly would be a benefit, he added.

Parmentier asked him about eminent domain in connection with redevelopment. Rollins said he's been in favor of it for the purpose of improving infrastructure – widening roads and installing sewer facilities.

However, he added, he isn't in favor of what he has seen happen in other areas, namely taking private property to use it for another private purpose.

Councilman Bob Rumfelt moved to appoint Spillman and Rollins. City Clerk Janel Chapman advised him that the two seats needed to be appointed in separate motions.

Rumfelt moved to appoint Spillman, which the council unanimously approved.

Before Rumfelt could make a separate motion to appoint Rollins, Parmentier quickly moved to appoint Gayner, with Irwin seconding. The council voted 3-2 for Gayner, with Rumfelt and Vice Mayor Pro Tem Ron Bertsch voting no.

The sudden vote elicited surprised looks from Spillman and fellow Planning Commissioner John Marino, who were sitting next to Rollins during the meeting.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:3}