UPPER LAKE – After two lengthy sessions, hours of public input and debate on the safety of cell phones, staff reports and discussion, the Board of Supervisors' consideration of a cell phone tower appeal came down to one thing.

Supervisor Denise Rushing said it was really a matter of local choice.

Upper Lake resident Cheryl Little Deer appealed the Planning Commission approval of a US Cellular cell tower located at 802, 902 and 1010 W. Highway 20 in Upper Lake. Little Deer said she opposed the project because of her concerns about the safety of cell phones and the accessibility of important health and safety information from government bodies like the Federal Communications Commission.

Despite Community Development Department staff's concerns that cell tower requirements and regulations and public health were outside of the scope of the board's consideration, those very issues, time and again, were at the heart of what members of the public brought forward.

It's the FCC that is supposed to be responsible for determining the safety of cell phone towers, Community Development Department staff pointed out.

However Rushing pointed out that health issues were within the board's scope.

"I think we are allowed to talk about health issues," said Rushing.

What really is at issue are the consequences of that discussion, which Rushing said could lead the county to a fight with both the federal government and the cell phone industry.

"I think there are many of us who are concerned about the nature of regulation on all industries," she said.

"It does come down to choices locally," said Rushing. "We can consider these issues, it's just the consequences are large."

This was the second hearing of Little Deer's appeal, with the board having continued it from May 15.

Little Deer's concerns included aesthetics and her belief that US Cellular was involved in "scientific fraud" in putting forth reports that cell phones and towers don't harm the public. There are billions of dollars in lawsuits against the cell phone industry due to health concerns, said Little Deer, and the Food & Drug Administration never certified cell phones as being safe.

US Cellular, said Little Deer, hadn't provided the county with a full plan for its operations, and she suggested that the county needed a full telecommunications plan, an idea others giving testimony during the hearing echoed.

Little Deer thanked the board for being willing to hear the issue. "I find you have a more open ear than any other county I've addressed this issue to."

Community Development Director Rick Coel said there are 16 cell phone sites in the county – which doesn't account for the city jurisdictions – with the county's guidelines calling for co-location on the same towers whenever possible.

Supervisor Ed Robey said he had looked at the report on the cell tower from US Cellular and he had concerns of his own.

"It describes all kinds of things," he said, including the limits for maximum permissible exposure to the tower's transmissions.

"Have you noticed that there is something that isn't here?" Robey asked.

He then ticked off a list of issues it didn't address – such as frequency range and power.

Nowhere, said Robey, did the report compare the tower's transmission power with the maximum limits.

"What kind of an analysis is this?" he asked, pointing out that those were the very things the board had been most concerned about after its first hearing on the issue.

Supervisor Anthony Farrington said he felt issues relating to federal limitations and exposure guidelines were beyond the board's scope, and that their hands were tied. He said he wanted more information about the inventory of cell phone towers and their locations around the county.

Sierra Club Lake Group Chair Victoria Brandon said letting the project go through without having a coordinated telecom plan was a bad idea. "Plan first, build later," she said.

Finley resident Phil Murphy said it was important in considering US Cellular's proposal to make a distinction between what's proposed and what the county actually might get five to 10 years down the road.

Upper Lake resident Dennis Everhart said cell phone safety is up to the FCC, and that with all the cell phone towers in the county, "I don't understand why the big hoo-ha on this one."

Having cell phone towers doesn't guarantee coverage between carriers, said Everhart. "The benefits of the many far outweigh the complaints of the few."

Little Deer said she opposed UC Cellular's project because it was too vague in too many places, and that the general public deserved clarity.

"I'm feeling that there's not enough disclosure and there needs to be more work on this," she said.

As Little Deer began to reiterate her concerns about the FCC, County Counsel Anita Grant interrupted her. " Complaints about the FCC are outside the scope of this process," Grant said.

Little Deer explained that she brought them up because of her concerns about "illusions" regarding FCC's actual controls and protection of consumers.

US Cellular officials said the application started for the project last year and that it has been a lengthy process just to get to this point.

Little Deer reiterated her belief that the county needed a telecom plan first.

Rushing agreed. She referenced a letter submitted to the board earlier in the hearing by Upper Lake resident Joy White.

She read a passage from White's letter, which stated that "Lake County is a beautiful, sacred place" that isn't to be exploited.

Rushing suggested deferring the cell tower issue until the county has a semblance of a plan to address the community's concerns.

She went so far as to make a motion to grant Little Deer's appeal, but withdrew it after the rest of the board expressed the desire to take the matter under submission and consider it further.

The board will have up to 45 days to make a decision. The announcement of that decision will be included on a future agenda.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

LAKE COUNTY – A draft resolution declaring the need for emergency action to protect Clear Lake from invasive mussels will go before the Board of Supervisors today.

Last week, County Counsel Anita Grant met with Supervisors Rob Brown and Denise Rushing to draft the item, which deals specifically with concerns about the quagga and zebra mussels reaching Clear Lake.

The invasive mussels have no natural predators, spread easily on boats, boating equipment and even in bait buckets, clog water system pipes and can cost millions to deal with, and have been known to cost millions of dollars to deal with, according to Pam Francis of the county's Water Resources Division.

A staff report from Grant to the board notes that the resolution can serve as a "starting point" for taking action.

In recent weeks the board has considered numerous options, such as inspecting all boats that come into the county, setting up portable decontamination systems, working with water event organizers to ensure boats and watercraft are decontaminated, and educating the public.

The draft resolution notes that a mussel infestation "will threaten local water supplies and will have a significant negative impact upon the use and enjoyment of these bodies of water by the public."

Primarily, the solution finds that the threat justifies emergency action.

Other points of the resolution:

– The board supports AB 1683, which prohibits possessing, importing or causing the mussels to be placed in any of the state's waterways, and gives the Department of Fish & Game authority to inspect all watercraft and quarantine waters.

– The board directs county staff to work with all affected counties and agencies to come up with the best plan to prevent the mussel infesting Clear Lake.

– County staff is to pursue "local regulatory and administrative changes" to assist the county in creating better management practices to prevent and/or control infestation.

– The board commits to adopting an invasive species management plan for long-term protection against the quagga and zebra mussels.

The resolution will be discussed as an untimed item during the board's meeting today, which begins at 9 a.m. at the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport. The meeting will be televised live on Channel 8.

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 – The county's chief administrative officer will present to the Board of Supervisors this Tuesday a $197 million proposed budget for the 2007-08 fiscal year.

A staff report from County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox to the board explains that preliminary budget hearings for the coming fiscal year have been held, and this proposed budget is suggested for their approval.

It's not the final budget, Cox reports. “As usual, a detailed review of the Proposed Budget and recommended Final Budget will take place during advertised public hearings in August and a written narrative for each budget unit will be provided to the board at that time,” he writes.

Meanwhile, the county will continue its current operations under the proposed budget, which – with the board's approval – will become effective July 1.

Cox, who is known for his expertise and care in constructing county budgets, has once again brought the board a balanced budget.

The total recommended appropriation, he said, is $197,888,938, which is about $16 million higher than the 2006-07 budget.

Cox's report explains that the increases are due primarily to an $11 million increase in the Road Division budget, a $3 million increase in the Social Services budget and $1.7 million more in the In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority budget.

“All three of these increases are financed by special revenue sources and do no represent an increase in the cost to the general fund,” Cox writes.

The county had to whittle down the requested appropriations from its various department heads, Cox reports. Unless the departments could draw on special funding sources, their budgets were reduced to amounts that would allow them to operate under current budget levels, Cox's report explains. Those reductions included new positions, fixed assets and inventory items.

If funding becomes available for requests such as new positions, Cox says those appropriations will be discussed during the final budget hearings.

Some interesting points in the budget:

– The county will maintain a $5 million budget reserve, with no increases or decreases expected.

– The general fund totals $51.6 million in 2007-08, versus $52.3 million the previous year. Cox explains that the fund is down less than $1 million due to the completion of one-time projects, including projects in the Parks and Recreation budget funded with State Park Bond grant money.

– The total recommended number of employees for the coming fiscal year is 964, down from 978 in the previous budget. Cox said no current filled positions are being eliminated but several vacant positions are being cut, mostly in departments not covered by the general fund. New positions will only be added through special funding sources. Seven positions are being deleted from Mental Health due to Med-Cal reimbursement delays and audit problems, and several more from Child Support Services due to decreases in state and federal funding.

– The budget includes a 2.5-percent cost of living increase for county employees, the result of negotiations with employee associations.

– The proposed budget includes several one-time projects: the Middletown Library, the new Animal Care & Control facility, the Mt. Hannah water tank replacement project, economic development and county infrastructure projects, and funds to support development of a new domestic violence shelter.

– The $100,000 allocation set aside to help relocate the Outrageous Waters water park equipment to county land is not being recommended for carryover. Cox writes that the project no longer appears feasible, and he suggests applying the money to the cost of applying for water rights relating to the Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration project. The board could still decide to reconsider the water park project during the final budget, Cox says.

– The county's Resort Revitalization and the enhanced Code Enforcement Program are running out of one-time monies which, in the case of Code Enforcement, were used to add several staff positions. If the county doesn't receive “a new infusion of one-time funding,” Cox explains that the programs will need to either be significantly downscaled or entirely phased out by the start of fiscal year 2008-09.

Cox's report also notes that there are several unknowns, both good and bad, that could “significantly impact” the coming budget. Among those are the outcome of state legislative proposals, some of which could affect property tax values; the state budget, which includes a proposed Williamson Act cut that could result in a $150,000 revenue loss in 2007-08.

Overall, Cox reports that the county remains in “solid financial condition,” and does not have a general fund debt.

The budget process, Cox explains, is far from over for 2007-09. “Presentation of the Proposed Budget marks the mid-point in the annual budget process and, as always, challenges and opportunities lie ahead during the development of the Final Budget.”

The budget consideration is an untimed item on the board's Tuesday agenda. The meeting starts at 9 a.m. in the board chambers in the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport. Channel 8 broadcasts the meetings live.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

LAKEPORT – After more than a decade without city fee hikes, the Lakeport City Council is set to approve a new fee schedule for city services first presented to them early in 2006.

The city in 2004 began the process of hiring a consulting firm to look at city services and the accompanying fees. Eventually, the city hired the consulting firm Maximus, which presented a cost of services fee study in February 2006 and again in March 2007.

The lengthy study considered, in detail, what services city staff provide and how much the public pays for the services in return.

It's important to make the distinction here that a fee isn't a tax. Taxes provide services for the public at large, while fees are for services the city provides to individuals or a specific group. Fees cover services such as permits, building inspections, zoning changes and nuisance violations.

Daniel Edds of Maximus originally estimated that by undercharging or not charging at all, the city was losing as much as $350,000 a year, a significant amount for a city with an annual budget of around $17 million.

Even so, the fee schedule has yet to be approved by the council, despite staff recommendations support the study. That's because both the council and the public expressed dismay about the significant increases Maximus' study proposed.

To finally wrap up the fee schedule matter, the council had a May 22 workshop at which they set up several “points of consideration.” Those include phasing in fees that have a 100-percent or more increase. Fees with 50-percent or more increases have a two-year phase-in, with a one-year phase-in for fees with less than a 50-percent proposed increase.

Tom Pelandini, president of the Lake County Board of Realtors, sent the council a letter dated May 22, saying the group was concerned that the city was attempting to make up for 13 years of not having raised fees “in one fell swoop.”

Higher fees, Pelandini wrote, could discourage residents from applying for necessary permits, which in turn will lead to more building code violations. He also suggested a “stepped increase” over time.

Although many of the originally controversial fees have been reduced, the council still had some reservations at its June 5 meeting.

That's because many of the proposed fees remain extremely steep.

For instance, a person who wants a permit to build a front yard fence higher than 3 feet or a backyard fence higher than 6 feet currently has to pay $60. The Maximus study suggests $711. City Community Development Director Richard Knoll said they don't get many such permit requests – only six since 2005, although four have been made this year alone.

City staff recommended a 25-percent reduction of that fee and several others, such as a home occupation permit, which would otherwise rise from $50 to $259; a tentative subdivision parcel map for one to four lots, jumping from zero to $1,465; architectural design and review, from $295 to $3,491; and lots divisions for four or more lots, from $275 to $5,947.

A curb, gutter and sidewalk encroachment permit, which is to go from $15 to $563, also concerned council members. City Engineer Scott Harter said those permits require as many as eight city staff inspections, plus a plan review. The county, where he used to work, charges only $150, but it's not as involved a process, he said, with only three inspections.

City Attorney Steve Brookes said the city needs to do sidewalks right, because falling on city sidewalks is the highest source of liability claims against the city.

If a citizen wants to appeal to the City Council regarding a Planning Commission decision, they now pay $150; after the fees are approved, they would pay $776, to cover staff time to analyze the appeal, said Knoll.

Councilman Jim Irwin said it's important, however, for the city to remain “accessible” in terms of its fee structure.

One big fee jump that Mayor Roy Parmentier said he was all for seeing implemented immediately was a new $365 fee to deal with nuisance vehicles. That city service has no existing fee.

Some of the permits not on the list that are experiencing marked increases include a permit for a water heater, which is rising to $300.

City Manager Jerry Gillham told the council that in his observation the standard of living in a community is linked to future prosperity and livability which, in turn, is directly related to fees.

“That bar that you set is important in terms of maintaining a sustainable community,” Gillham said.

The most livable communities, he said, have been found to have the highest fees. “Fees aren't necessarily a detriment to positive economic growth.”

The City Council meeting will begin at 6 p.m. Tuesday, June 19, at Lakeport City Hall, 225 Park 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}

LAKE COUNTY – The results of a survey mailed to local manufactured home owners earlier this year are in, and it has revealed some surprising information.

In Lake County, manufactured housing accounts for approximately 700 new homes (of the approximately 2,000 new housing starts) per year; at 33 percent, that's slightly higher than the national average of 25 percent.

In the spring, the Manufactured Housing Citizens Group mailed 42 surveys to people who had voiced complaints about their manufactured homes. Of those mailed, 17 people who bought their homes in the last five years completed the survey.

This sample does not provide information about the number of buyers unhappy with their purchase (compared to the total number of buyers of manufactured housing in the county), but the survey does reveal something about the type of problem buyers experience when buying a manufactured home in Lake County.

The survey supports the conclusion by the famous AARP study (in 1999) that most buyers pay for manufactured housing defects out of their own pockets. In the Lake County study, only one buyer was successful in getting the dealer to correct defects, one other buyer paid for his own repairs and in 15 cases the problems remain uncorrected.

Buyers did seek help in resolving problems. More than half the people in the survey filed complaints with one or more government bodies, usually the state Department of Housing and Community Development (of HCD, the manufactured housing ombudsman) and to a lesser extent the Contractors State License Board.

Although the HCD ombudsman was helpful in procuring missing paperwork for some buyers, these agencies were not influential in obtaining a single repair for buyers at the time of this study.

Two-thirds of the buyers in this survey consulted an attorney: of these, five are currently in litigation, one has won in court and another six were advised against legal solutions largely because of the expense.

It was known at the outset of the study that only those experiencing problems with their manufactured homes were polled; however, the level of dissatisfaction was surprising. Not one person was “more satisfied than dissatisfied,” and a whopping 16 of 17 respondents said they were “extremely dissatisfied.” Only three of 17 described their experience as moderately inconvenient while 14 characterized their experience as “highly disturbing.”

When buyers purchased their manufactured homes they were told that they would be able to move in within a few months of purchase; however, in this study 14 of 17 buyers had to wait six months or more, including nine buyers who were homeless for a year.

A significant finding of this study is that although buyers think they are signing up for the “turnkey” purchase advertised by local dealers (meaning the dealer is responsible for all aspects of construction), another pattern is emerging in Lake County. That is, even though installation is included in the original sales contract, dealers are asking buyers to sign an additional contract with a private licensed contractor.

A few buyers report that the dealer waited months after the initial sale and then informed them the work could not be accomplished within a year unless they engaged a private contractor. In all eight cases where buyers signed with both a dealer and a contractor, the homes took from six to 12 months to finish.

The group will present the findings of this study to the Lake County Board of Supervisors in connection with a request that the board enact legislation requiring local dealers to inform buyers of their legal rights regarding the purchase of manufactured housing prior to the transfer of funds.

The group also will request that the county's consumer affairs division furnish a free clinic on small claims court to help buyers who are not able to afford legal assistance.

Anyone wishing to contact the manufactured housing group may phone 998-0249.

{mos_sb_discuss:2}

CLEARLAKE – Clearlake's new city administrator said the city budget will be late this year but he's planning some procedural changes that he believes will increase fiscal responsibility.

“I know we're going to be late,” Dale Neiman said Wednesday about Clearlake's budget.

Neiman said he thinks he'll have a draft budget ready for the council in July or August.

Once they have a draft in hand, Neiman said he'll set up public budget workshops for the City Council to go over the details. The budget will eventually be accepted after a public hearing, he added.

When budgets are late, he said state law requires cities to adopt a resolution that stipulates the budget accounts used to operate until the new budget is adopted.

Neiman said he's still getting up to speed on the city's budget processes, but he sees some changes he'd like to make in purchasing expenses.

At other cities where he's worked, he signed off on all department expenditures above $250. In Clearlake, he only signs off on an expenditure if it's above $5,000, an amount be feels is too high.

He plans to have that amount reduced, although he didn't say to what number.

Another change he'd like to make is to the city's policy of using credit cards. He doesn't like them, largely because he knows of two cities in Humboldt County which were embezzled – one by more than $30,000 – because employee usage wasn't monitored properly.

One plus of not completing the budget early: “There's potentially a bunch of transportation funds coming,” he said.

By not having the budget finished before those funds are available, Neiman said they can plug them in without having to go through a budget amendment process.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:2}